Devious Deceptions and Dangerous Delusions

Evolutionary biology as a theory is on the defensive.  Scientific arguments for evolution lack factual evidence, relying on “probably” and “could have” to establish the foundation of further speculation.Biochemistry-and-Molecular-Biology  When this kind of misadventure is pointed out, evolutionists are intimidated and angry often resorting to slander or derogatory remarks.  Evolutionists will negate associating biological evolution with chemical evolution.  Many evolutionists do not know that the theory says every life form is related to every other life form.  This means the earthworm, jellyfish, blue whale, fern and spider were derived from some ancient ancestral form from which even humans arose.  In an attempt to account for life arising from some nonliving circumstance, evolutionists will try to

Cousin to the earthworm? Fact or Fiction?

Cousin to the earthworm? Fact or Fiction?

combat the incredibly large and insurmountable improbabilities with stories of their own.  And they are satisfied with this.  Read the following argument and then decide if the argument is believable.  The article is taken from a defense of evolution website and its editor Richard Peacock wrote this article. [http://www.evolutionfaq.com/pages/about].

The Probability of Life

Creationists have long asserted that the chances of life forming naturally are so remote that they could not have happened. Read about how, in fact, the chances are much wider than most think.  by Richard Peacock

Probability of Life.  Creationists often claim that the chances of a modern enzyme forming by random means are astronomically small, and therefore the

What part of us is jelly fish?

What part of us is jelly fish?

chances of a complete bacterium (which is composed of hundreds or thousands of such enzymes & proteins) is so near to impossible that it would never happen in the 13 billion years or so since the universe took shape.   The main problem with this argument is that it assumes abiogenesis (the initial formation of life from simpler molecules) was a totally random process. It also assumes that in order for abiogenesis to be successful, a complete microbe would have had to form spontaneously. In fact, the same non-random forces which propel biological evolution also propelled abiogenesis. Specifically, Natural Selection.

The calculation, which supports the creationist argument, begins with the probability

Is this true?

Is this true?

of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium have?

If this were the theory of abiogeneisis, and if it relied entirely on random chance, then yes, it would be impossible for life to form in this way. However, this is not the case.   Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by

Climbing Mt. Improbable.

Climbing Mt. Improbable.

the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all.   For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 1040, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10390 claim creationists often cite.

Though, to be fair, 1040 is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth.

In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 1024 liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 1031 self-

From goo to you.

From goo to you.

replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 1040, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.

Now in consideration of what Richard has written, has he presented a convincing case for the genesis of life from nonliving substances? 

At first glance it might seem like an argument.  But when one begins to dissect his argument, the credibility of the science behind it comes into question. It is, to be kind, imaginative but delusional thinking since not a single element of the argument is either science or fact  For instance, suggesting that a peptide of 32 amino acids can replicate itself is not scientifically valid.  In fact, no molecule on the planet is known that can replicate itself.  What about DNA?  DNA does not replicate itself.  A small army of protein molecules and template DNA are needed to replicate DNA.  Proteins bind to the double stranded molecule as an anchor for more proteins.  Other proteins unwind the DNA and other proteins separate the two strands of the double helix.  A bundle of proteins enter the single strands and hold the strands separate so dna repthat multimeric proteins like the DNA polymerase complex and the editing proteins and a large number of energetic molecules like ATP and GTP enter the reaction in order to duplicate the DNA strand.  No molecules of RNA or protein or DNA are known that can replicate themselves independent of proteins directing the process.  Even proteins that are produced in large numbers – replicates of the same protein – require the ribosome; an organelle composed of 4 RNA strands and 70 protein molecules that execute the synthesis of protein from its RNA code.  So the “simplest theorized self-replicating peptide” is a fictional character in the story of evolution.

Richard then notes that even molecular evolution employs the nonrandom means of natural

The bacterial ribosome - protein synthesis machinery.

The bacterial ribosome – protein synthesis machinery.

selection to expedite the selection of successful molecular configurations.  To date, no natural process is known that would favor the production of any biochemical or organic molecule.  What

selective pressures exist, even in the fantasy world of primordial ooze, that would give some favorable advantage to the formation of one molecule over another or one configuration over another?  Richard mentions none and when one becomes familiar with the literature in origins research it becomes clear that no one has yet thought up much less proved that a natural molecular selection force exists.  The truth is that any event that would produce a peptide, let alone a peptide of a linear arrange of amino acids with any specified information content, by natural means would be just as likely to destroy the same molecule in much less time than it took to form.  So this does not help the argument against creation (or design).

Thirdly, the description of a world of oceans that contained a concentration of amino acids at a concentration of 10-6 M is complete fantasy.  No such oceans exist or existed.  Even if all the worlds ocean contain these molecules (20 amino acids are encoded in the DNA molecule so let us assume

Ants picking strawberries. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?

Ants picking strawberries. Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?

we still need those 20 amino acids) where did the amino acids come from?  Furthermore, if these organic compounds are available, what about nitrogenous bases, alcohols, sugars, phosphates, ammonia, benzene, and a hundred thousand other organic compounds that MUST have been created by the mystical chemistry of prebiotic chemical evolution?  Any of these compounds would compete against the formation of the peptide bonds that are needed to form proteins from amino acids.

So, if the oceans were filled with amino acids and if there were no other interfering substances and

Ants going fishing. Now do you believe?

Ants going fishing. Now do you believe?

if there were a known mechanism of natural chemical selection and if there was such a thing as a self-replicating molecule and if a mechanism of random linear polypeptide formation was real and if all of the oceans were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather

The cell membrane.

The cell membrane.

conditions, then we might get the 10 31 self-replicating peptides.  If all this was true we would have around 40 million of these molecules per gallon of ocean water.  This is not sufficient to make any difference on the road to life.  If these molecules lasted through the conditions of such a world as described they would then replicate themselves until all the amino acids in the oceans were filled with the 32 amino acid peptide.  Now, how does one go from this peptide to the first living cell, which requires 2000 other proteins (not peptides) of an average length of 200 amino acids plus the DNA code that must account for the information needed to make those 2000 other proteins, a cell membrane, ribosomes, the respiratory pathway, a cell wall, the channels to control ion exchange and movement of chemical foods and waste across the membrane, the means of binary fission (forget sexual reproduction at this point) and the network of genetic controls required to deal with a living existence?

Does nature select for anything?

Does nature select for anything?

I hope that you are thinking as critically about this scenario as I am because this is not an adequate rebuttal to the fact that life cannot have risen from non-life.  Creationist show the statistical probability of a protein molecule of 300 amino acids length coming together under the most pristine of conditions, not the evolutionary conditions imagined by the disciples of Darwin.  The statistics alone are sufficient for any objective scientist to abandon materialism and search for other mechanisms. Here, this author takes the scenario seriously and attempts to fit it into his paradigm, ignoring the thousand other conditions that are adverse to his theory.

If this “science” were taught to any grade level it would be considered a devious deception or a dangerous delusion.  It is a fairy tale told by wishful snowmenthinking.  It is lacking scientific credibility and devoid of every necessary element required to make it work.  It certainly does not belong in the sciences and falls into the category of poetry or philosophy or more correctly, a religious belief. It is at best, pseudoscience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 Responses to “Devious Deceptions and Dangerous Delusions”

  1. Manie

    We stumbled over here coming from a different page and
    thought I might as well check things out. I like what I see so i am just following you.
    Look forward to looking into your web page yet again.

    Reply
  2. Health

    Hello, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one
    and i was just curious if you get a lot of spam remarks?
    If so how do you reduce it, any plugin or anything you can suggest?
    I get so much lately it’s driving me crazy so any assistance is very much appreciated.

    Reply
    • Dr. Daniel Moran, Ph.D.

      I use askemet which is a plugging for word press.
      Dan

      Reply
  3. Maureen

    I must thank you for the efforts you have put
    in penning this blog. I am hoping to view the same high-grade blog posts by you later on as
    well. In truth, your creative writing abilities has
    inspired me to get my own, personal blog now 😉

    Reply
  4. http://Www.ocean-korea.co.kr

    I like the valuable info you provide in your articles.
    I’ll bookmark your blog and check again here regularly.
    I am quite sure I will learn a lot of new stuff
    right here! Good luck for the next!

    Reply
  5. www.blueillume.com

    Appreciating the dedication you put into your website and detailed
    information you offer. It’s awesome to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same unwanted
    rehashed information. Great read! I’ve saved your site and I’m
    including your RSS feeds to my Google account.

    Reply
  6. visit website

    An impressive share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a co-worker who had been conducting a little research on this.
    And he in fact bought me dinner because I stumbled upon it for him…

    lol. So allow me to reword this…. Thanks for the
    meal!! But yeah, thanx for spending the time to talk about
    this issue here on your site.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *