POLL: Evolution vs. Creation by God

[studentofthemarkets]

Tonight I watched the next episode in the series by Dr. James Tour.

The video mainly corrects several inaccuracies in Dr. Farina's first video.

The following quote is just one of the many interesting remarks made by Dr. Tours:

32:00 Remember all that goop that Eschenmoser made? That’s what you would get with this. You’d get 32 possible isomers plus all the polymerization adducts of these. Ugh! Nobody knows how this was made on pre-biotic earth. So how do origin-of-life people deal with it? They just buy these. Where does the manufacturer, where do the people who sell these, get it? Well, they get it from nature. ‘Cause nature just spits these things out. Biology is amazing. Nobody knows where it came from on prebiotic earth. You see why it’s frustrating to have people just trivialize this stuff?
​

Twice Dr. Tour questioned if he put us to sleep with this video. Lol.

With the last 2 episodes Dr. Tours has done a decent job summarizing what he was teaching. If someone just wants a quick overview without all the details, then I'd suggest watching from the summary time stamp at the end, or perhaps beginning a few minutes earlier. The summary doesn't point out the inaccuracies made by Dr. Farina, so to get the most out of the video, it is best to watch the whole thing.

Episode 5/13: Carbohydrates // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour


In this episode on carbohydrates, Dr. James Tour teaches the 1st class of compounds needed for life -- carbohydrates-- and comes right out of the gate, refuting the claimed triviality of their biomolecular synthesis. Rather than agree with the claim on the ease of polysaccharide synthesis, Dr. Tour explains the difficulty of their creation, including homochirality and the prebiotic problems facing multiple isomers, blind pathways, and polymerization and positioning. Also, Dr. Tour points out the fallacy of borrowing products from biology in prebiotic syntheses, and the challenge of early Earth blindly working through unfathomable procedures.

Video Index:
00:00 - Introduction
00:48 - Reasons & Intent of this Abiogenesis Series
02:45 - Correcting the Record on Polysaccharide & Biomolecular Synthesis 07:28 - Before Nucleotides, Ribose
09:48 - Cannizzaro vs Formose
13:01 - Eschenmoser's attempt
19:47 - Time & Equilibrium
22:18 - "homo-DNA" instead
23:36 - Real world difficulties
25:53 - Polymerization - Hooking the Sugars
42:36 - Summary and What's Next

 

[studentofthemarkets]

Tonight I watched Episode 6 of the series. I think this video has been the easiest to follow so far. The most interesting part of the video, IMHO, was from 3:45 to 7:16 where he showed how difficult it would be to put together a car if the pieces of the car were scattered on the ground. Then he related that to building block synthesis. He also made some interesting points later in the video, when critiquing Professor Dave Farina's video.

My apologies: In previous posts I mistakenly referred to Professor Dave Farina as Dr. Farina.

I'm getting curious to know how Professor Dave responded to this video series. Maybe the next video I post will be the first response made by Professor Dave.

Episode 6/13: The Building Blocks of Building Blocks // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour

In this episode, Dr. James Tour pauses and goes back to the basics, in a most literal sense. The matter at hand is not merely synthesizing the four classes of compounds needed for life – polysaccharides/carbohydrates, proteins, nucleic acids, and lipids – but rather their respective building blocks – monomeric sugars; amino acids; nucleotides; and fatty acids and glycerol. When restricted to prebiotic chemicals and methods, and with no store from which to purchase these building blocks while remembering homochirality, is biomolecular synthesis easy?

Video Index:
00:00 - Introduction
00:39 - Reasons & Intent of this Abiogenesis Series
03:25 - Car Parts' Building Blocks
07:16 - "Easy" Misconception Regarding Building Block Syntheses 11:56 - Cellular Building Blocks & their origin
14:01 - Convenience vs Prebiotic Rocks & Atmosphere
15:59 - Summary and What's Next

 

[ph1l]

he showed how difficult it would be to put together a car if the pieces of the car were scattered on the ground.

That's the watchmaker (not Watchtower) argument.
https://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

The watchmaker is a false analogy because it assumes that because two objects share one common quality, they must have another quality in common.

1. 1. A watch is complex
   2. A watch has a watchmaker
   3. The universe is also complex
   4. Therefore the universe has a watchmaker
   The last step is wrong, because it concludes something that is not supported by the criteria. It is best clarified by another example:
   
   
   
   1. Leaves are complex cellulose structures
   2. Leaves grow on trees
   3. Money bills are also complex cellulose structures
   4. Therefore money grow on trees (which, according to the idiom, they don

 

[studentofthemarkets]

That's the watchmaker (not Watchtower) argument.
https://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

Before moving onto the next video in the series by Dr. James Tour, I will attempt to refute some arguments against the validity of the Watchmaker Argument by linking 2 articles and 1 video. The full refutation of the arguments are in the links, not the few excerpts below.

This first article critiques a video made against the Watchmaker Argument and it thoroughly addresses the supposed fallacies presented in the link posted by Ph1l. These few quotes are just scratching the surface of what the article presents.

Paley’s Watchmaker Argument – Undefeated once Understood
https://rationalfaith.com/2019/11/paleys-watchmaker-argument-undefeated/#more-2667

The analogy is NOT the argument. The analogy is used for what analogies are typically used for, to help the reader understand a deeper point, the analogy in and of itself is NOT the argument.
​

And:

He also conveniently makes a false comparisons to drive home his point, but I won’t bother to go into that error because his whole case is worthless since the basis of the Teleological argument is not based on an analogy.
​

And this is just extra, he make some good points here:

“…It completely ignores evolution by natural selection”​

For evolution to be even remotely feasible, it must explain 1. The origin of life (which it can’t) and 2. Answer where the necessary increase in information comes to do things like change body types. (Another thing it can’t do.) Because Natural Selection is a process that REMOVES information, it doesn’t add it. As geneticist Dr. Marciej Giertych puts it:​

“Darwin assumed that the increase of information comes from natural selection. But natural selection reduces genetic information. And we know this from all the genetic operations studies that we have.”
​

Note: this video link below (in red) was directly copied with this paragraph and is VERY GOOD!

[7] video​

The only thing in Neo-Darwinism that can add information is mutations – and they are almost always negative in impact (video).
​

Above is another video link (I didn't realize these got copied by cut and paste, but they did and both videos are GREAT!)

Thus they do not help in the selecting for survival.​

He further claims “We know for a fact that nature can, does and has produced remarkably complex organisms without a conscious and intelligent behind them.”(4:14) We know no such thing. Here he’s just spouting Evolutionary dogma while begging the question.

https://rationalfaith.com/2019/11/paleys-watchmaker-argument-undefeated/#more-2667
​

These next quotes are from a lengthy but very thorough article. Bold added by me.

Design Engineering Shows 1) God Created Life 2) Genesis 1 is literal
http://www.trbap.org/OOL.pdf​

Many scientists today speak as though they are authorities in engineering, history, and philosophy as well as science. They aren’t. There appears to be a simple explanation and resolution of the conflict—modern science oversteps its authority in its claims. Science is properly the study of what exists in nature and how it works. Careful measurements and repeatable experiments are the basic tools of science. However, serious confusion results when scientists intrude into other fields outside their proper domain. I.e., the problems come when scientists present themselves as authorities in engineering, in history, and in philosophy. The solution: recognize only legitimate science. When this is done, the Bible and science are in complete harmony. The discrepancies: 1) Engineers first design then make what they designed. Making things is the domain of engineering, not science. Engineers typically design complex systems with many components which need to cooperate with each other to provide a product that works. These products require a number of essential components such that missing any of them results in its failure. This applies to virtually everything engineers design related to our technological age, from computers to car engines. Yet, living cells are vastly more complicated than anything man can design and make.
​

And:

Our modern technological society is the product of science and engineering working together. Science studies things found in nature. It uses precise measurements and experiments to understand what exists and how it works. Engineering takes the principles learned from science and makes new things using them. Unbiased science appears to show us clearly that natural processes are in themselves insufficient to create life. In the Detailed Analysis in Part 2, this issue will be thoroughly analyzed. Engineering gives us a model to understand that God created life in the form of living cells. We will look at a short summary now.
​

And:

How design engineering shows God created life. The title of this article talks about how engineering shows that God created life. The basis for this claim is straightforward. Consider information: An information-controlled system needs to be designed by an intelligent being then built. Computers and computer driven machines such as cars and microwave ovens are controlled by a combination of hardware and software. The software is useless without the hardware. The hardware is useless without the software. There is a minimum level of completeness needed for both hardware and software before either can function properly. Engineers understand that it is impossible for unguided, gradual, step-by-step processes to provide the required minimal level of completeness to build an information processor. Living cells also have a complex body of information and special hardware to use it. Just as with computers, the information and hardware need to appear fully formed simultaneously. This requires design then fabrication. However, in a cell the complexity observed for both the information stored in its DNA and the cellular hardware to read it far exceeds anything a man can design. This suggests that cellular information and supporting hardware are the result of design by a being with intelligence that greatly exceeds that of a man. It would be even more impossible to provide cellular information by gradual, random step-by-step processes in order to provide cellular life than for a computer. Yet, a biologist will refuse to acknowledge this train of thought, because it invalidates naturalism. To the biologist, evidence is not the issue. If any evidence appears to work against naturalism, it is rejected without analysis. This attitude represents fake science. Biologists become the true pseudoscientists when they act like this. They place their personally preferred, God-denying philosophy ahead of the observations of modern technology.
​

And:

Man has elaborate tools available to fabricate the components of a computer. However, there are no tools available to convert a design for a living cell into actual living cells. Once living cells appear, they can make copies of themselves by replication. Tools are no longer needed. Tools for cellular fabrication would be extremely complicated. There is no basis to expect required tools to appear spontaneously in nature. This suggests that the Designer also had to have the ability to move individual atoms and molecules into precisely defined, dynamic relationships with each other in order to make the first living cells. I.e., the Designer needs to have the ability to work outside of natural law at will to make the first cells. What do you call an extremely intelligent being who has the ability to work outside of nature at will, doing so as He places atoms and molecules into predetermined arrangements in order to make something according to a design? You call Him God. The things we have learned from science and engineering working together lead us straight to the understanding that living cells are the handiwork of a living God. This is exactly what the Bible leads us to expect. Atheists who reject the possibility of such a God have spent seven decades of intense research trying to explain why God is not needed for the appearance of living cells. All they have to show for their evidence are paradoxes and failed experiments.

It is intriguing that the Bible talks about how God works by planning then doing. Man is generally most effective when he first plans and then does. A totally undisciplined man rejects the advantages of this, but can end up going hungry as a result.
​

Have to interrupt this paragraph and point out that the same thing can be said of trading: A totally undisciplined trader rejects the advantages of this, but can end up going hungry as a result.

Genesis 1 shows how God used the pattern of planning then making for His activity on each of the six days of creation. The same pattern applies as well for the entire sequence of days taken as a whole. Engineers by practice follow the pattern of first designing then fabricating. Engineering copies the approach God used in Genesis 1. The ability to design then fabricate appears to be a facet of man being created in God’s image, as also explained in Genesis 1. Cats don’t design cell phones. Neither do they build them. When man attempts to eliminate God as the Creator of life, he runs into nothing but failures and paradoxes. This is very well a general statement, but applies so broadly that it even encompasses discussions on the origin of life. If a man extrapolates from his limited capabilities for design to that required to design a living cell, he is led to the understanding that God created life. Furthermore, He is a personal God with eternal power and various personal attributes (divine nature). God says that man has no excuse if he doesn’t understand this. So, from a Biblical perspective, the train of thought presented in this article appears to be exactly what God expects a person to understand. In response, a person needs to worship God, giving Him glory and thanksgiving. He needs to seek Him and submit His will to Him. Man instinctively knows that God sets the standards of right and wrong and that He judges our adherence to them. This is why men make such an effort to suppress truth about God. They know but do not want to know. 4 Fortunately, God is also a God of grace, as discussed at the end of this article.5 There is a beautiful consistency in the picture presented here. Biblical teachings, engineering, science, God’s nature, and man’s nature all supplement each other in perfect harmony. This is satisfying to a person who knows Christ as his personal Savior and has a living relationship with God. The paradoxes and failures of abiogenesis should serve as a warning to those who rely only on naturalistic philosophy as a substitute for God.

​

And all of the arguments above go hand in hand with the "Irreducible Complexity" argument presented in this short video, basically saying that parts that rely on each other to be fully formed must have been formed at the same time, they could not have evolved slowly:

 

[ph1l]

And all of the arguments above go hand in hand with the "Irreducible Complexity" argument presented in this short video, basically saying that parts that rely on each other to be fully formed must have been formed at the same time, they could not have evolved slowly:

Not everyone buys the "Irreducible Complexity" argument.
https://dnalc.cshl.edu/view/16981-Irreducible-Complexity-and-Flagella-Deconstructing-ID.html

That's just empirically wrong; you can take away lots of proteins and still get a functional flagellum.

there [are] a lot of problems in nature, there [are] a lot of problems that scientists have that we haven't yet explained, but not having yet explained something doesn't make something unexplainable, and that's the mistake that the intelligent design folks make.

https://biologos.org/articles/behe-and-irreducible-complexity-failure-to-engage-the-evidence

Legions of scientists have rejected this argument. Why? Is it because they are godless atheists who deny the existence of an intelligent Creator? No. Some of Behe’s strongest critics are deeply committed Christians. These scientists simply see overwhelming evidence that irreducibly complex structures and systems have developed gradually through natural, evolutionary processes. For the believer, these processes are simply God’s chosen means of providentially ordering the world.

 

[studentofthemarkets]

Not everyone buys the "Irreducible Complexity" argument.
https://dnalc.cshl.edu/view/16981-Irreducible-Complexity-and-Flagella-Deconstructing-ID.html




https://biologos.org/articles/behe-and-irreducible-complexity-failure-to-engage-the-evidence

Thanks for posting something evidential, as opposed to the trolls who simply vent their emotions.

I'll reply....after I have some time to find some quotes to contradict your quotes.

 

[studentofthemarkets]

Not everyone buys the "Irreducible Complexity" argument.
https://dnalc.cshl.edu/view/16981-Irreducible-Complexity-and-Flagella-Deconstructing-ID.html




https://biologos.org/articles/behe-and-irreducible-complexity-failure-to-engage-the-evidence

I found an article with quotes that contradict your quotes.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard....ehe-s-prime-example-of-irreducible-complexity

How can "some mutation" alone turn a secretory system into a flagellum? Think about this, the T3SS has over 25 proteins, over 60 structural and regulatory proteins are required for flagellum assembly and function. 3, and both share only 9 to 13 proteins. So, instead of a single "Crooked" mutation, the transition from one machine to another would require the novel evolution of over 50 proteins along with huge structural rearrangements (that would certainly disrupt the function of the system). Clearly, evolution seems plausible, UNTIL we try testing against actual, more detailed facts taken from molecular biology

Miller's refutation of irreducible complexity of the Flagellum through co-option is a prima facie example of a pseudo-scientific argument. Since Miller recognizes implicitly that a gradual evolutionary step by step development of the flagellum is not possible, he comes up with an ad hoc explanation, namely co-opting parts from other biological systems. That copying, modifying, and combining together preexisting parts, already operating in other systems, would do the job. But, is it really? Could it be, that super-evolutionary mechanisms would act that way, borrowing parts from other biological systems and assemble them to a flagellum with a new function, perfectly ordered, with perfect fits, and new functions, with the help of Saint time, that would do that miracle? Even thinking, that time, in this case, would rather be detrimental, than help? Would it really be, that the most perfect and efficient motor in the universe could arise by copy/pasta, by a supernatural pick and add, a molecular quilt and patchwork mechanism? The question that follows is what exactly did the recruiting? What provokes recruitment to another system? and you believe in Santa Claus, as well? That's not only insane but completely impossible.

Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages. If a random mutation helps an organism survive, it can be preserved and passed on to the next generation. Yet, the flagellar motor has no function until after all of its 30 parts have been assembled. The 29 and 28-part versions of this motor do not work. Thus, natural selection can "select" or preserve the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it can do nothing to help build the motor in the first place. 1

4. Therefore, the only option is set up by an intelligent designer.
3. Evolutionary biologists are unable to give any explanation on how all these proteins could have evolved in a gradual fashion to form the flagellum

Knockout experiments and tests provide empirical evidence that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, as Scott Minnich testified at the Dover process:

Kitzmiller Transcript of Testimony of Scott Minnich pgs. 99-108, Nov. 3, 2005, emphasis added

We have a mutation in a drive shaft protein or the U joint, and they can't swim. Now, to confirm that that's the only part that we've affected, you know, is that we can identify this mutation, clone the gene from the wild-type and reintroduce it by the mechanism of genetic complementation. So this is, these cells up here are derived from this mutant where we have complemented with a good copy of the gene. One mutation, one part knock out, it can't swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition, the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.
(Kitzmiller Transcript of Testimony of Scott Minnich pgs. 99-108, Nov. 3, 2005, emphasis added)

The argument of the flagellum
1. The flagellum (turning propeller for movement in the water) has about 40 different proteins facilitating the work of the flagellum. Every protein is a complex structure of about 300 atoms.
2. All particles are very important and one cannot exist without another just like parts of the car engine. And the proteins will disintegrate if they are not in the flagellum structure.
3. The proponents of evolution are unable to give any explanation how all these 1200 parts appeared simultaneously in the right position and started to work together out of the prebiotic soup.
4. Therefore, the only option is creation. Just like no car engine has ever come out of an explosion in an oilfield or tank of gasoline.
5. The Supreme Ultimate creator is God.

The irreducible complexity of the flagellum
1. The flagellum has 36 different proteins essential for the function of the flagellum. Every protein is a complex structure of average 300 amino acids
2. All proteins are required and one has no function without another just like a piston of a car engine has no use without the other engine parts.
3. Evolutionary biologists are unable to give any explanation on how all these proteins could have evolved in a gradual fashion to form the flagellum
4. Therefore, the only option is set up by an intelligent designer.
​

There's more to this article and there are a few other articles at the same site that discuss this.

 

[ph1l]

2. All proteins are required and one has no function without another just like a piston of a car engine has no use without the other engine parts.
​

No, some of the parts isolated can do other functions.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-bacterial-flagellum-is-irreducibly-complex/

What’s more, of these 23 proteins, it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.

It has also been shown that some of the components that make up a typical flagellum – the motor, the machinery for extruding the “propeller” and a primitive directional control system – can perform other useful functions in the cell, such as exporting proteins.

3. Evolutionary biologists are unable to give any explanation on how all these proteins could have evolved in a gradual fashion to form the flagellum​

Yes, they can.​

It has been proposed that the flagellum originated from a protein export system. Over time, this system might have been adapted to attach a bacterium to a surface by extruding an adhesive filament. An ion-powered pump for expelling substances from the cell might then have mutated to form the basis of a rotary motor. Rotating any asymmetrical filament would propel a cell and give it a huge advantage over non-motile bacteria even before more spiral filaments evolved.

4. Therefore, the only option is set up by an intelligent designer.
​

That's not the only option.

Without a time machine it may never be possible to prove that this is how the flagellum evolved. However, what has been discovered so far – that flagella vary greatly and that at least some of the components and proteins of which they are made can carry out other useful functions in the cells – show that they are not “irreducibly complex”.
...
Think of a stone archway: hundreds of years after the event, how do you prove how it was built? It might not be possible to prove that the builders used wooden scaffolding to support the arch when it was built, but this does not mean they levitated the stone blocks into place.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

 

[stu]

anti-evolustionists are just a bunch of silly primate deniers