Hugh Ross: Creation as Science

I found this and wonder what JIA and ush would have to say about all these Christian Evolutionist 😉

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/christian_evolutionists.html

Originally posted by DigiMark007
In any case, in belated response to Trans' request:

Stanley Miller and ___ Urey (don't have the first name) first generated amino acids in 1953 using conditions that were set up to be similar to what we believe to be Earth's atmospheric conditions before the advent of life on the planet. The study has fallen in and out of favor in subsequent years as our estimates of earth's atmosphere become more and more refined.

Since that time, amino acids have been developed in a wide array of tests, all with varying but similar atmospheric conditions to what we believe to be earth's primordial atmosphere.

Notably, protein microspheres were spontaneously produced in such an experiment by biochemist Sydney Fox ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_W._Fox ) in the 50's and 60's, which is the next logical step beyond amino acids toward the creation of life.

Even beyond this, 74 types of amino acids have been discovered on meteorites that have landed on earth, which tells us that these building blocks of life can be formed in a wide variety of atmospheric conditions, and survive the rigors of space.

Probably the only remaining creationist objection to such findings is that we have not yet created "life" (defined conveniently enough for them that very little in earth's early history would be considered life). But this of course ignores the fact that evolution deals with hundreds of millions of years. We discovered DNA a little over 50 years ago. I'd say we're doing alright for half a century. The fact that we don't have life in a lab actually supports the gradual process of evolution, rather than seeing it as a failure and labeling life a divine miracle.

...

My source for most of the information (other than the Urey/Miller and Fox findings) is Donald Prothero's book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, which goes into far more detail on these matter (and others) than I have time to here.

There are three main parts of the Urey-Miller experiment that invalidate the results they received, I will go through each one as briefly as possible.

1- By using a mechanism called a "cold trap," Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. Had he not done so, the conditions in the environment in which the amino acids were formed would immediately have destroyed these molecules. In Miller's previous experiments (in which he used the same materials) he did not produce the same results without the "cold trap". The chemist Richard Bliss expresses another contradiction by observing that "Actually, without this trap, the chemical products, would have been destroyed by the energy source." (Richard B. Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, pp. 14-15.)

2- The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia.

So why did Miller insist on these gases? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesize any amino acid.

3- At the end of Miller's experiment, many organic acids had also been formed with characteristics detrimental to the structure and function of living things. If the amino acids had not been isolated, and had been left in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable.

Moreover, Miller's experiment also produced right-handed amino acids. (Richard B. Bliss & Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish, Origin of Life, C.L.P. Publications, 3rd ed., California, 1990, p. 16.) The existence of these amino acids refuted the theory even within its own terms, because right-handed amino acids cannot function in the composition of living organisms. To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids were formed in Miller's experiment were not suitable for life. In truth, this medium took the form of an acidic mixture destroying and oxidizing the useful molecules obtained.

As we can see, the Urey-Miller experiment is unusable because of the many problems it had in the execution and results of the tests taken.

Moving on to Fox,

1- Fox made his "microspheres" (more accurately protenoids)"under very special conditions," by heating them in a dry environment. The amino acids combined, but still no proteins were obtained. What he actually ended up with were simple and disordered loops of amino acids, arbitrarily combined with each other, and these loops were far from resembling any living protein. Furthermore, if Fox had kept the amino acids at a steady temperature, then these useless loops would also have disintegrated.

2- Fox did not use the useless end products obtained in Miller's experiment; rather, he used pure amino acids from living organisms. This experiment, however, which was intended to be a continuation of Miller's experiment, should have started out from the results obtained by Miller. Yet neither Fox, nor any other researcher, used the useless amino acids Miller produced.

Needless to say, Fox and Urey-Miller are not even remotely close to proofs for abiogenesis, and this STILL does not address the absurdly monumental probability AGAINST the self-assemblance of proteins in the "primordial soup",

. A thermodynamic analysis of a mixture of protein and amino acids in an ocean containing a 1 molar solution of each amino acid (100,000,000 times higher concentration than we inferred to be present in the prebiological ocean) indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 1085 liters. At 10-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10229 universes (100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds.

I was really hoping for a new study, but alas, once again I see Urey-Miller and Fox.

C'mon have some originality people!

Though I thank you for bringing this up, most people never have a chance to see these facts.

Bravo!

This would have been faster:
http://sikku.blogspot.com/2007/08/invalidating-miller-ureys-experiment_10.html

There we go . . . wait that's the same thing, word for word. Having to plagiarize an argument makes you look foolish.

The information also seems out of date. What do we care about what science thought in the 1980s anyway?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This would have been faster:
http://sikku.blogspot.com/2007/08/invalidating-miller-ureys-experiment_10.html

There we go . . . wait that's the same thing, word for word. Having to plagiarize an argument makes you look foolish.

...and can get you banned.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This would have been faster:
http://sikku.blogspot.com/2007/08/invalidating-miller-ureys-experiment_10.html

There we go . . . wait that's the same thing, word for word. Having to plagiarize an argument makes you look foolish.

The information also seems out of date. What do we care about what science thought in the 1980s anyway?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This would have been faster:
http://sikku.blogspot.com/2007/08/invalidating-miller-ureys-experiment_10.html

There we go . . . wait that's the same thing, word for word. Having to plagiarize an argument makes you look foolish.

The information also seems out of date. What do we care about what science thought in the 1980s anyway?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This would have been faster:
http://sikku.blogspot.com/2007/08/invalidating-miller-ureys-experiment_10.html

There we go . . . wait that's the same thing, word for word. Having to plagiarize an argument makes you look foolish.

Originally posted by Acrosurge
Indeed, though it does not necessarily falsify the information plagiarized.

That is true, but it does not reflect well on the person who plagiarized.

Originally posted by Acrosurge
Indeed, though it does not necessarily falsify the information plagiarized.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is true, but it does not reflect well on the person who plagiarized.

Originally posted by Acrosurge
Indeed, though it does not necessarily falsify the information plagiarized.

I didn't make that claim.

However the fact that we're in 2008 and the articles used stop around 1991 really makes one wonder. I'm not well versed enough in the actual science to refute the article but it seems to make a number of assumptions.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Unless it was an honest mistake, as was the case here. In such circumstances, it would not reflect well on the person who ignores apologies and explainations, namely, you.

I believe that was a statement and a true one at that, did he say that he didn't accept your apology? It could also be construed that you came up with this after the fact to order to cover your self, both are valid and just statements.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Unless it was an honest mistake, as was the case here. In such circumstances, it would not reflect well on the person who ignores apologies and explainations, namely, you.

Should I check to see if plagiarizing is a pattern with you?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Should I check to see if plagiarizing is a pattern with you?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I didn't make that claim.

However the fact that we're in 2008 and the articles used stop around 1991 really makes one wonder. I'm not well versed enough in the actual science to refute the article but it seems to make a number of assumptions.

Has their been a successful, laboratory duplication of primeval protein structures and amino acids since the 80s?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Feel free, I have nothing to hide.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Feel free, I have nothing to hide.

This makes it look like you do.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Unless it was an honest mistake, as was the case here. In such circumstances, it would not reflect well on the person who ignores apologies and explainations, namely, you.

I wasn't even talking to you at the time.

Hey Trans, I mentioned that the results have been duplicated numerous times in settings with much more refined atmospheric conditions to match our current knowledge. Hell, I stated myself that the Miller study had fallen out of favor in subsequent years. So props for being able to defeat the already-identified straw man, but you, like Ross, are living about 50 years in the past.

You also ignored anything in my post besides what you had a copy/paste article on. At least don't insult our intelligences like that.

Read Prothero's book that I mentioned. I summarized the findings, but he really just blows all of this to holy hell. And, in a nutshell, the numerous studies conducted show that life could easily have developed in earth's early atmosphere. The fact that we can't go back and time and see exactly how it happened doesn't invalidate that we've proven that it is very likely to have happened.

But a hearty "lulz" at your "Pfft! Just another Miller/Fox citation?! Come on, be original." Are your quotations from scientific peer reviews, or Christian websites? Do you continue the scientific inquiry or do you just declare them failed theories and decide that god is the winner? And the objections against Fox also betray a less than full understanding of evolution. Mutation is random, so it makes sense that initial experiements would yield arbitrary and unorganized protein chains. Were you expecting perfectly ordered chains that would lead us directly to more complex forms? Hell, if that happened, it would actually hurt evolution and strengthen the case for ID because of how absurdly unlikely it is.

And stop posting the big numbers. They mean nothing. Figure out how natural selection works, and how it negates your probability equations. It's Hoyle's 747 analogy re-packaged, and equally as invalid.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Hey Trans, I mentioned that the results have been duplicated numerous times in settings with much more refined atmospheric conditions to match our current knowledge. Hell, I stated myself that the Miller study had fallen out of favor in subsequent years. So props for being able to defeat the already-identified straw man, but you, like Ross, are living about 50 years in the past.

You also ignored anything in my post besides what you had a copy/paste article on. At least don't insult our intelligences like that.

Read Prothero's book that I mentioned. I summarized the findings, but he really just blows all of this to holy hell. And, in a nutshell, the numerous studies conducted show that life could easily have developed in earth's early atmosphere. The fact that we can't go back and time and see exactly how it happened doesn't invalidate that we've proven that it is very likely to have happened.

And even if I take your word for it that proteins could have been formed in the early Earth atmosphere (which has yet to have any merit), the argument of sheer probability remains. Once again from http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html

A thermodynamic analysis of a mixture of protein and amino acids in an ocean containing a 1 molar solution of each amino acid ( 100,000,000 times higher concentration than we inferred to be present in the prebiological ocean ) indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 1085 liters. At 10-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10229 universes (100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds.

So Digi, even if you can produce a new study complete with citation (what I was interested about in the first place) you still have to answer to the immense probability AGAINST your position.

And, for the record, Natural Selection has no effect on inanimate objects such as proteins. The mere idea that it does is laughable at best.

Originally posted by DigiMark007

But a hearty "lulz" at your "Pfft! Just another Miller/Fox citation?! Come on, be original." Are your quotations from scientific peer reviews, or Christian websites? Do you continue the scientific inquiry or do you just declare them failed theories and decide that god is the winner? And the objections against Fox also betray a less than full understanding of evolution. Mutation is random, so it makes sense that initial experiements would yield arbitrary and unorganized protein chains. Were you expecting perfectly ordered chains that would lead us directly to more complex forms? Hell, if that happened, it would actually hurt evolution and strengthen the case for ID because of how absurdly unlikely it is.

I know how you hate copy/paste answers, but this one is just too good to refuse. Quoting again from that same brilliant paper: http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html

Sidney Fox, an amino acid chemist, and one of my professors in graduate school, recognized the problem and set about constructing an alternative. Since water is unfavorable to peptide bond formation, the absence of water must favor the reaction. Fox attempted to melt pure crystalline amino acids in order to promote peptide bond formation by driving off water from the mix. He discovered to his dismay that most amino acids broke down to a tarry degradation product long before they melted. After many tries he discovered two of the 20 amino acids, aspartic and glutamic acid, would melt to a liquid at about 200oC. He further discovered that if he were to dissolve the other amino acids in the molten aspartic and glutamic acids, he could produce a melt containing up to 50% of the remaining 18 amino acids. It was no surprise then that the amber liquid, after cooking for a few hours , contained polymers of amino acids with some of the properties of proteins. He subsequently named the product proteinoids. The polymerized material can be poured into an aqueous solution, resulting in the formation of spherules of protein-like material which Fox has likened to cells. Fox has claimed nearly every conceivable property for his product, including that he had bridged the macromolecule to cell transition. He even went so far as to demonstrate a piece of lava rock could substitute for the test tube in proteinoid synthesis and claimed the process took place on the primitive earth on the flanks of volcanoes. However, his critics as well as his own students have stripped his credibility. Note the following problems:

1) Proteinoids are not proteins ; they contain many non-peptide bonds and unnatural cross-linkages.

2) The peptide bonds they do contain are beta bonds, whereas all biological peptide bonds are alpha.

3) His starting materials are purified amino acids bearing no resemblance to the materials available in the "dilute soup." If one were to try the experiment with condensed "prebiological soup," tar would be the only product.

4) The ratio of 50% Glu and Asp necessary for success in these experiments bears no resemblance to the vastly higher ratio of Gly and Ala found in nearly all primitive earth synthesis experiments.

5) There is no evidence of information content in the molecules.

All of his claims have failed the tests of rationality when examined carefully. As promising as his approach seemed in theory, the reality is catastrophic to the hopes of paleobiogeochemists.

I couldn't have put it better myself.