Proteins: Evolution or little Green Men, is it a hoax?

Evolution has been discussed on ATS as a hoax along with the theory of Earth being seeded by aliens. However, lets look at it empirically. So to start I will put the following points as a starting point for further discussion.

For those in favor of evolution and those not in favor of evolution, please refrain from "flaming / bashing" another's point of view.

The following is a very simplified look at the process of proteins.

PROTEINS: INTELLIGENCE WITH NO BRAINS

We hear talk about proteins, right? Have you ever wondered
what a protein really is?

Proteins are workers inside the cells of your body.

Among other duties, proteins are the transporters within
the cells. They are the stevedores that lug everything
around.

How do they know what they are supposed to do? Who tells
them what, where, when, and how much to carry?

Here’s what happens. It’s quite amazing, really.

I will tell you the answer to that one, yet it only
presents a bigger question: Another protein (often a
constructor) moves over to the transporter, touches him
momentarily, and the transporter then knows exactly what
to get and how much is needed.

Each protein is carefully assembled by another protein –
which was itself assembled only a short time before. It
does the assembling job from materials lying around. And
it never makes a mistake.

Here’s another question: Who taught the protein how to
assemble another protein?

Each protein has a very complex structure. It is made up
of hundreds of organic amino acids, arranged in a totally
complicated order.

There could be only one correct arrangement of each
protein – yet there are millions of wrong ways it could
be arranged.

Now think carefully about this. Could the utter randomness
of evolution ever come up with the right combination for
each protein?

Let me explain further.

If the constructor protein finds he does not have the right
amount and combination of amino acids lying around, he tells
another protein to bring him some more!

The messenger goes to the edge of the cell and tells the
gatekeeper (another protein) to bring them in, which he
does.

And did you know, this is going on millions of times a
minute in every cell of your body.

Each little protein molecule does the most fabulous things.
It carries out complicated tasks which require great
intelligence.

The problem is there is not a nerve cell anywhere in its
body. No brains.

Armies of proteins carry out complicated series of actions.
Every step is complex, yet the finished result is always
perfect.

I ask you, how can this be done, when different proteins
which never meet each other take part in the different
steps?

As you may know, none of the proteins lives very long.

And none of them teaches the new proteins they construct
how to do the work they are going to do! There are no
classroom teachers in the cell, for all the students have
no brains, yet they know exactly what to do!

And now would you please consider this: Even if we grant
that just one time, evolution might produce one correct
protein –could it ever repeat that long-shot success
again? (Because that’s what it would have to do, in order
to replicate that correct protein in making millions more
of it.)

ENZYMES: MATHEMATICAL ODDS

Enzymes are proteins of high molecular weight.

Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Wickramasinghe write:

“Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so,
that the chance of their being formed through random
shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly
minute, to a point where it is insensibly different from
zero.” (F. Hoyle and C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution From
Space. Dent, p. 3)

They explain that there are perhaps 10 to the 80th (10, followed
by 80 zeros) atoms in the universe and 10 to the 17th seconds have
elapsed since the alleged ‘big bang’.

The number of independent enzymes necessary for life is
about 2,000.

The probability of building just one of these enzymes cannot
be better than one in 10 to the 40000th.

This outrageously small probability could not be faced, even
if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

“If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a
scientific training that life originated on Earth, this
simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court.”
(Ibid, p. 24)

Fred Hoyle, writing in New Scientist, repeated that 2,000
different and very complex enzymes are required for a
living organism to exist.

Then he added that not a single one of these could be formed
by random, shuffling processes in even 20 billion years!

Our existence on earth is as if we had won a million-dollar
lottery a million times in a row.

AMINO ACIDS: IMPOSSIBLE ODDS

There are 20 amino acids. There are 300 amino acids in a
specialized sequence in each medium protein. There are
billions upon billions of possible combinations!

The right combination from among the 20 amino acids would
have to be brought together in the right sequence – in
order to make one useable protein.

The possible arrangements of the 20 amino acids is
2,500,000,000,000,000,000.

If evolutionary theory is true, every protein arrangement in
a life form has to be worked out by chance until it works
right – first one combination and then another until one is
found that works right.

But by then the organism will have long been dead, if it ever
had been alive!


ALL NEED TO EXIST TOGETHER, INSTANTLY!

Now would you please consider this carefully:

* DNA only works because it has enzymes to help it.
* Enzymes work only because there are protein chains.
* Protein works only because of DNA.
* DNA only works because it is formed of protein chains.

So DNA… enzymes… and protein ALL have to be there together,
immediately, at the same time. There’s no other way!

That complexity cannot be reduced to anything simpler!

Let’s say that again:
* The enzymes only work because the protein chains are
coded in a special sequence by an already existing
DNA.
* DNA can only replicate with the help of already existing
protein enzymes.

Do you see the problem? We are really in a chicken and
egg situation.

OUTMODED THEORY

So what do you think? Might it be time we stopped believing
in a mid-19th century theory that was devised when almost
nothing was known about proteins, genetics, or microbiology?

Some people are already calling evolution theory a hoax.

Okay, you might think that’s going too far, but let’s face it,
you and I will still need to come up with some plausible
answers to questions like these:
* How does new information evolve?
* How did two separate species which are 100% inter-dependent,
evolve simultaneously? (There are many examples of this.)
* How did a living cell suddenly appear with its irreducible
complexity?
Hard questions? Perhaps. But I assure you, there are some good,
plausible, and even convincing answers.

However, that hardly scrapes the surface.

Thats for the start, let the discussion begin! Please remember the other persons point of view is their view of things, no matter if it is right or wrong they are entitled to it.

I understand the argument presented here, and as a deist myself, I tend to agree that it does indicate intelligence in our design. But allow me to play devils advocate with this rebuttal:

Our lack of understanding as a species of our origin is not necessarily indicative of a "creator" or "superior being(s)". We cannot just label something an "act of god (or higher intelligence)" because we do not fully understand it. If we were to always follow this logic then human kind would never solve any of the great mysteries presented to us in our existence. It would be a major detriment to our progress in most any field of science. I mean, why bother searching for the truth behind something when you can just explain it away with god? Yes, the series of processes that generate and sustain life are vastly complex and beyond our current understanding. But, that does not warrant or justify leaving the explanation at the foot of faith. Instead it should fuel the fire of curiosity that, for obvious reasons, is inherent in us as humans.

reply to post by Icon_xof

Yes, the series of processes that generate and sustain life are vastly complex and beyond our current understanding. But, that does not warrant or justify leaving the explanation at the foot of faith.

This is why I wanted those who respond to do so by presenting their point of view via science.

We could debate the faith point all day long and never get anywhere.

Thank you for posting your point of view.