| |
|
So, robertrosen, I think the crucial passage in your link is this one:
In living cells, proteins are the "machines of life," which build the structures and facilitate (catalyze) the chemical reactions used by all life. Proteins are called "informational" molecules, because they each perform a "function" in living things (such as oxygen-transport by hemoglobin), and they are non-repetitively complex, and the sequential order of the building blocks (amino acids) of protein are highly specified ---so that if the proper sequence is changed much at all, function is lost.
Going further in our proof: There are no known laws (or properties) of physics or chemistry in nature, which would have been sufficient, by themselves, to originally dictate the sequential order of the amino acids in functional classes of proteins adequate to sustain life (so far as anyone has been able to reasonably conceive life). Similarly, there are no known laws (or properties) of physics of chemistry which could have originally dictated the sequential order of the nucleotides in the DNA required for the first life (and to build those first proteins of life) ---although, again, as scientists we must always remain open to the possibility that it may be demonstrated that there is a series of natural events in nature (unaided by intelligent design) which would accomplish the origination of all 20 required amino acids along with the sequential ordering of them to construct the proteins (&/or the DNA) required for life. Any scientific approach must be able to be negated, and this is the way that this "proof" is able to be negated. (See my article on Abiogenesis)
To which (I realise this is unsatisfactory in a way) I throw back this link, from the ever reliable TalkOrigins.
Every so often, someone comes up with the statement "the formation of any enzyme by chance is nearly impossible, therefore abiogenesis is impossible". Often they cite an impressive looking calculation from the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, or trot out something called "Borel's Law" to prove that life is statistically impossible. These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.
Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations
1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
But I think there are two important points to make here. One, is that much of creationist argument is really argument from ignorance. Whenever we don't understand something about life - I can forsee that this will be a siutation that never ends, although the things we don't understand may change - the explanation is "god". I mean, I swear I had an extra fiver in my pocket yesterday...so obviously, the almighty creator took it. Makes sense.
Second, you really have to buy into an enormous conspiracy theory to believe that scientists are almost unanimously supporting evolution (I realise that this is actually becoming increasingly common, but I think the point still stands). |
|
|
