Loopholes In Origin of Life Theories - Science vs Evolution

posted on June 16th, 2012, 12:02 am

Here are some inescapable challenges facing naturalistic origin-of-life theories.

1) The Miller Experiment used a Methane-Ammonia-Hydrogen atmosphere and introduced an electrical spark to produce simple organic compounds. Including a few of the twenty types of amino acid molecules, and tar. Now, all life uses all twenty amino acids with no exceptions, so unless you can produce all twenty amino-acids, you're not going to get any life. It is now believed that the early earth atmosphere was actually Nitrogen-Carbon dioxide, not Methane-Ammonia-Hydrogen. In this new atmosphere composition, zero amino acids are produced unless there is a little bit of Hydrogen in the mixture. Even if Hydrogen is used, the quantity of amino acids is greatly reduced.

2) Evidence shows that the early earth atmosphere contained oxygen (some Hematite rocks dated 3.8 billion years old (earliest life is about 300 million years later) have been found to be oxidized). Other rocks dated around 3.46 billion years old show abundant oxygen in the early earth atmosphere. This causes several problems including (1) Oxygen and Hydrogen have this explosive tendency when mixed, so you can't do a Miller-type experiment with Hydrogen and Oxygen, and (2) Oxygen would bond to the amino acids produced, rendering them utterly useless.

3) Oxygen is required for ozone, a gaseous compound that blocks ultraviolet light. Ultraviolet light would destroy any organic compounds produced. So in a world without oxygen, there would be nothing protecting the vulnerable amino acids from destruction. So, in summary, the conditions required (in the area of Oxygen at least) are contradictory. Oxygen is both required and disallowed.

4) The processes that produce amino acids and other organic compounds destroy them even faster. The Miller-type experiments used a strategically-placed trap to trap the compounds produced by the experiment (in short, they cheated). Such traps would not be present in a natural environment and thus the experiments did not truly simulate a natural environment.

5) Organic chemicals react with each other and with inorganic compounds. Sugars destroy amino acids, but both sugars and amino acids are required to form life.

Enzymes from a living cell are required to produce chemicals that form DNA and RNA bases. So without any pre-existing life, there would be no way to form the genetic bases for the life form. And by the way, these chemicals are also deadly poisons (formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide), one of which were used in NAZI concentration camps.

Calcium (a type of metal) ions precipitate fatty acids, which is necessary for cell membranes and phosphate, which is necessary for genetic materials, ATP (life's energy currency), and other life components. Metal ions readily bond with amino acids, which prevents them from performing more important functions.

6) Proteins require only left hand amino acids while sugars (used in genetic material) require only right hand amino acids. Both hands of amino acids are produced in equal quantities to each other. This ruins any complex molecule that tries to form by natural processes.

7) Life requires catalysts that are specific for a single type of molecule. These require specific amino acid sequences that have a 1:10^650 of forming. Simulations trying to produce these produce random sequences that form non-functional proteins and enzymes.

8) DNA is required to code for proteins, yet DNA itself requires many proteins which are encoded in the DNA. RNA has been suggested, but it itself needs DNA and proteins, and DNA and proteins need RNA. One without the other is useless.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 12:09 am

eurgh if science vs religion flamebait threads aren't banned, they need to be. there are athiest/creationist forums dedicated to these ridiculous "debates"

posted on June 16th, 2012, 12:23 am

That confirms one thing, even if problems for evolution are called up (with absolutely no mention of alternate theories), it's labeled religion. Last time I checked, science WAS NOT banned from the forums. I simply listed scientific facts that challenge evolution and you just (falsely) labeled it religion. This is NOT religion, it is science. And there is a difference.

EDIT: This is not intended to be a 'flamebait' thread. It was intended to be a thread that scientifically discusses the weaknesses of the theory of evolution (without discussing ANY alternatives). But apparently, even that is not welcomed.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 12:55 am

EDIT: This is not intended to be a 'flamebait' thread. It was intended to be a thread that scientifically discusses the weaknesses of the theory of evolution (without discussing ANY alternatives). But apparently, even that is not welcomed.

You're right, I don't welcome it.

I welcome and encourage lots of debate on many topics, it's nearly always a positive thing. but not in this case. these sorts of debates never result in anything positive, they nearly always descend into flaming.if you want to debate creationism vs evolution then there are much better places to do it IMO.

meh if you want to do it, fine, i'll stay out of it and leave it to hopefully quietly fizzle out.

commencing thread abandonment protocol:

posted on June 16th, 2012, 1:09 am

All I'm wanting to do is discuss the scientific weaknesses of evolution, leaving creation OUT of the discussion. What is wrong with discussing the scientific weaknesses of a scientific theory such as evolution?

EDIT: You are the one trying to put creation into the thread, I'm trying to keep it out of the thread.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 1:27 am

For what it's worth: the original post simply pointed out gaps. Part of the scientific process to is work through gaps.

As for the science/religion debate: it really doesn't have to be a "one vs. the other" thing. Science seeks to answer questions of "how?" Religion wrestles with questions of "why?" The science of genetics has its roots in the work of Catholic monks who bred plants. A lot of basic mathmatic formulas used today survived the fall of civilizations in libraries preserved by monasteries/churches. Most of the major universities of the world originally organized as religious schools.

My soon-to-be former bishop is fond of saying "Conflict is inevitable. Combat is optional." Religion and science in dialogue has helped the world work through some very important questions. There was a time when both religion and science were used as tools to justify slavery in the United States. It was religion that first called this into question, while science eventually caught up. Religion has and continues to be a major contributor in discerning ethical uses for the technologies that result from scientific endeavor.

In the Middle Ages, the rediscovery that the world is round and moving around the sun triggered religious questions that forced human beings to re-examine humanity's place in the universe. (It is a humbling and freeing thing to realize you aren't at the center of it all.)

While I agree that the subject needs to be handled with care, the discussion can be a fruitful one.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 1:46 am

Personally i believe micro evolution (adaption of species to their environment, survival of the fittest) is very plausible.

I never believed that macro evolution (genesis of life ) was possible. The odds of the exact components finding each other in the right circumstances to produce building blocks for life are too small to even fathom.

Then those building blocks combine to early life and so forth. I have a background in Biochemistry and Clinical Chemistry and while the scientist inside me says it isn't impossible the odds against all of this happening make it not very plausible.

When you see how the human body is, how each tiny part is designed to work with each other then the scientific faith of it being the result of a series of random events is more than i can master.

In reality the odds of it being the result of a intelligent design far exceed those of it being the result of coincidences.
I realize that "God" is not something/someone who can be proven by scientific means and that the whole possibility of a creation is often ridiculed, but i simply lack the faith to believe that life is the result of a series of random events.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 4:18 am

Personally i believe micro evolution (adaption of species to their environment, survival of the fittest) is very plausible.

I never believed that macro evolution (genesis of life ) was possible. The odds of the exact components finding each other in the right circumstances to produce building blocks for life are too small to even fathom.

Then those building blocks combine to early life and so forth. I have a background in Biochemistry and Clinical Chemistry and while the scientist inside me says it isn't impossible the odds against all of this happening make it not very plausible.

When you see how the human body is, how each tiny part is designed to work with each other then the scientific faith of it being the result of a series of random events is more than i can master.

In reality the odds of it being the result of a intelligent design far exceed those of it being the result of coincidences.
I realize that "God" is not something/someone who can be proven by scientific means and that the whole possibility of a creation is often ridiculed, but i simply lack the faith to believe that life is the result of a series of random events.

That has to be one of the best written pieces Ive ever come across in a thread like this. You sir have put to words my exact feelings and perspective on the matter. I commend you.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 7:19 am

Stupid enought that these threads are a hot spot for US American fanatics, these people really think they are in a position or even capable of dicussion these topics on a scientific level including the required depth in literature and such. This matter is NOT about "logics" or "analytical ability" or something...you need an open mind and a large body of knowledge to argue for or against it.

And the even funnier thing is that they start to be huffy once you say somthing against their "scientific questions". Evidence is directly given in this thread:

That confirms one thing, even if problems for evolution are called up (with absolutely no mention of alternate theories), it's labeled religion. Last time I checked, science WAS NOT banned from the forums. I simply listed scientific facts that challenge evolution and you just (falsely) labeled it religion. This is NOT religion, it is science. And there is a difference.

The admins should really close these threads...especially since Chapman, our well-known creationist, is the only one opening them.

Btw TC...facts are merily scientific...there is only evidence...and without giving acknowledgement where you digged out these "facts" the whole discussion is pointless in any way.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 10:19 am

I do agree that topics such as this tend to go south real fast. However that is to be expected since a complete trust in science can be called "faith" or a religion.

I am both a Christian and a scientist. It is the scientist in me which has serious doubts about the evolution theory.
As a scientist you look at the evidence, bring forth a hypothesis, test this hypothesis and if the evidence contradicts the hypothesis you investigate why it does contradict the hypothesis and you propose a new hypothesis.

The biggest scientific travesty of our time is the fact that scientists still hang onto the evolution theory (especially macro evolution) despite evidence against it.

Personally i won't start topics such as this simply i do not believe the internet is the place for it. If we want to debate this let's meet face to face, bring a beer and plenty of spare time and we can discuss it. The internet is really not the place for this.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 12:20 pm

commencing thread abandonment protocol:

posted on June 16th, 2012, 12:41 pm

posted on June 16th, 2012, 12:45 pm

My father taught me to never discuss: sports, politics or religion, because those topics go directly to the core of people believes and therefore those discussions are unproductive and a waste of time.

However I don't see the need to shut down this thread as long as the discussion is civil and open minded.

EDIT: a word

posted on June 16th, 2012, 2:58 pm

this is just funny.

Tchapman, What you are talking about isn't evolution. It is abiogenisis and there are several models out there.

posted on June 16th, 2012, 3:02 pm

oh and even if for some reason evolution is flawed then there still needs to explained how species are formed. Even though the silverfox experiment and the nylon bacteria are good examples of evolution