[Traditie1]

(continuare)

Constructing the Proteins and Nucleic Acids

Any plausible theory of the origin of life must include the formation of complicated macro-molecules like proteins, DNA and RNA. In addition, there are other necessary components of life such as lipids, carbohydrates, hormones, enzymes, etc. that must be formed and be utilized to produce life.

The syntheses of proteins from DNA is very complicated (see any biology textbook), and experiments to produce life in a test tube fall woefully short of creating life. There are a series of obstacles to the notion of life arising spontaneously from a sea of chemicals:
CHEMICAL ENVIRONMENT - Some of the necessary component chemicals react with one another is counter-productive ways. For example, phosphoric acid which would be necessary to form DNA would form an insoluble salt with calcium (calcium phosphate), sink to the bottom of a primordial sea, and be unavailable to make DNA. (Gish 1972, 23).
POLYMERIZATION - How are the polymers formed in proteins and nucleic acids? A basic problem is that monomers never become polymers unless energy is supplied - they don't spontaneously arise. Protein formation in the laboratory requires a number of deliberate steps by a chemist. Experiments with catalysts and heating of dry amino acids have not demonstrated anything close to realistic life macro-molecules. (Gish 1972, 17-23)
SEQUENCES - This detail is at the center of the origin of life problem. Assuming that there WAS a large supply of molecular building blocks, how do you get the specific sequences necessary in proteins and in DNA? Consider proteins: the sequence of amino acids determines the way the molecule will "fold up", which gives it physical properties. For a particular function, an exact sequence is required. What are the odds of this occurring by accident? The odds of forming a specific molecule with 100 amino acids is (1/20) ** 100 = 10e130 (the number 10 with 130 zeros following it) to 1. Forget it!
Along these lines, the famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe (both atheists) calculated the probability of life forming by chance in five billion years on earth. The answer is 10e40000 to 1 (a number so close to zero as to effectively be zero). They then considered the universe with 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars and 20 billion years. Still no chance. Hoyle said the probability of life evolving anywhere in the universe is as likely as a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747! OPTICAL ISOMERS - Amino acids are found in L-amino (left) or D-amino (right) types and are formed in equal proportions in synthesis experiments. Animals and people are made of almost exclusively L-animo types. How is this selection made? ... Still an open question.


Biological Systems

To go beyond proteins, DNA and RNA, and to assemble them into a working biological system is another mystery. We must go from disjointed molecules to complex interrelated systems that are capable of self-maintenance and self-replication.

One approach (Oparin's Coacervate Theory) is to try to construct coacervates (large blobs of colloidal particles) from molecules. Unfortunately, this merely holds together random molecules by electrostatic chemical bonds. (Gish 1972, 27).
Another scheme uses microspheres (Fox's Proteinoid Microsphere Theory) by the pyrocondensation of amino acids. But these are only random polymers of amino acids that are inherently unstable. There are no energy-utilizing systems, no replicating systems, etc. (Gish 1972, 30) A biological system is more than a collection of molecules thrown together - these blobs have to be able to do something, they have to act as little machines with input and output related to some greater purpose in the cell. How a biological system could arise still remains in the realm of "science fiction".



The Living Cell
Now we cross the line from the molecular to the living. Whether bacteria, animals, plants or people, we all have cells.

Cells consist of many biological elements that are enclosed in a cell membrane that allows certain molecules to pass out of it and let others in. It must be able to perform many functions: self-replicate, maintain itself by the construction of new proteins, regulate it's functions, etc.
Cells are tremendously complex and more complicated than any machine man has ever built. Even the smallest bacterial cell has 100 proteins, DNA, RNA, and contains one hundred billion atoms.
The simplest cells are not more primitive than, or ancestral of, larger ones. This poses an immediate problem. How do you get all the complicated machinery to work at the same time? It either all works or nothing works. For example, the information to construct the apparatus to synthesize proteins is stored in the DNA. But the extraction of this information requires the apparatus to be in place already (Denton 1985, 269).
To explain the evolution of the cell requires imagining simpler "proto-cells". One such idea by Francis Crick (Denton 1985, 265) uses a proto-cell that is allowed to make mistakes in protein formation (termed "statistical proteins") to create new systems. This is challenged by the knowledge that even small errors cause devastating biological consequences. In short, explaining the origin of life is a big problem for evolutionists. It is such a problem that mainstream scientific literature even considers the possibility of life dropping in from outer space, called the theory of "panspermia" (Scientific American, Feb 1992). But even this only moves to problem one step outward

In plus, cel mai probabil procesul a fost mult mai complex decat il descrii, cu o groaza de "ratari", si putine succese. Dar Pamantul are 4.5 miliarde de ani vechime, si cea mai veche bacterie descoperita are 3.5. Deci bacteria aia a avut la dispozitie 1 miliard de ani ca sa ajunga acolo. Iti dai seama ce se poate intampla intr-un miliard de ani, ca sa nu mai vorbim de cele 3.5 care au urmat?

Asta fiindca vrei tu ca ceva sa se intample. Dar uite ca numai pe pamant se intampla minunatia care este viata si nicaieri altundeva, deci timpul nu are importanta.

Stiinta da rezultate. Si da, e la inceput, dar uitandu-ma la progresul facut de la Renastere incoace, nu e rau deloc.

Ti-am mai spus si o repet, toate beneficiile aduse de stiinta te inconjoara, si functioneaza. Crezi ca baietii aia in halate albe au "bushit" tocmai evolutia, si acum s-au adunat intr-o mare conspiratie ca sa isi ascunda greseala? Creationismul nu ar fi aparut in veci ca miscare, daca evolutia nu contrazicea povestea genezei. Asta este problema, contrazice cartea aia, dar ma rog, e problema cartii si a celor ce cred in ea, nu a stiintei.

Deci dupa tine faptul ca stiinta are rezultate inseamna ca trebuie sa credem tot ce vine de la ea. Asta denota religiozitate aberanta.

Ia zi, cum ar trebui sa ia stiinta in considerare ceva ce ne-observabil? Explica, te rog.

Pai ori trebuie sa se limiteze la ce e observabil ori nu, hotarasta-te. Daca trebuie sa se limiteze, atunci sa nu mai emita teorii despre originea vietii si a lumii. Daca nu trebuie sa se limiteze, atunci sa ia in calcul si existenta lui Dumnezeu.