Intelligent Design

[Free Cycle]

In general i wouldn't cite a geocities site as reliable

 

[SVRP]

Michael first wrote

Random choice doesn’t even make sense, I only hear of it when someone pro-intelligent design brings it up. There are no credible scientist that believe a cell just spontaneously self assembled. Nor a protein for that matter. The chances of that are so improbable that it isn't an option.

Then Michael wrote

What is your point here? Do you even attempt to read about the people you are quoting? Leslie Orgel is an evolutionary biologist at Salk. His focus is on how life started from early chemical reactions not how it was created from a god. He has a theory about RNA. He also thinks that about 4 billion years ago the earliest pre-cells may have self-aggregated by sticking to mineral surfaces. Again I ask what is your point?

Well, Michael, if you look over your responses again you will see the point. The point is you have written that “random choice doesn’t even make sense” and “no credible scientist believes that is the case” regarding random choice. Yet I have brought to your attention two scientists who do believe that is the case. Therefore, your statements are not true and are misleading. Don’t you agree?

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by SVRP
... regarding random choice.... I have brought to your attention two scientists who do believe that is the case...

SVRP define what you mean by "random choice". Once you define this then show me where these two scientists agree with this definition. There is a selection process which is not random. Certainly the latter of the two is developing a selective RNA theory that is anything but "random".

 

[SVRP]

Random choice meaning a chance happening, without purpose, haphazard, no thought in its construction.
(A dictionary is very helpful if you need to search for definitions. As for the scientist’s references to random choice, it should be very evident in both the quote and article if you re-read them again.)

 

[sage]

SVRP said

Quoting Stephen Hawking, “… a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality.” (‘The Nature of Space and Time’, Stephen Hawking, Princeton University Press, 1996). According to Hawking, the notion that the universe has neither beginning nor end is something that exists in mathematical terms only using imaginary numbers and does not correspond to reality. He wrote, “Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no (beginning)… When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however,… the universe has a beginning.” Plus he wrote, “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” (‘A Brief History of Time’, Stephen Hawking, Bantam Books, 1996). Physicists agree that time, space, and matter originated together at some finite point in the past, about 15 to 20 billion years ago. Now the question is how did God exist before the universe began when there was no time, space, or matter? Even Hawking acknowledges the universe “… would be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all.” So where was God before this happened?

I have read Hawkings through and through. Nowhere does his works convey anything of the nature you are suggesting. Either you are ignorant or you are deliberately misleading others. If latter is the case then I hope you get out of this thread immediately. If not then I prefer you study the work of the men you are quoting in entirety. You have misquoted other genuine scientists as well ,as Michael has pointed out. So is this a habit of yours? And I suggest everyone to stop referring to other people’s quotes or publications from the internet, as anyone can write anything in a website . Study good sources and write out the relevant informations and conclusions yourself. Links to sources are given so that others can verify what you are saying, but you must make your case yourself.

Mutations, the random error in the copying process, have been acknowledged to be more harmful than helpful, resulting in diseases and death,

yes that’s the idea. Harmful mutations lead to death. They play no part in evolutionary process any further. But useful mutations, few as they are, not only survive in the gene pool, they are quickly transmitted throughout the species via natural selection, which favour those offsprings that have that mutation than those that do not. A small evolutionary step has been achieved. Then another helpful mutation comes along. The process continues. And mutations are not bullets, why do you give such absurd comparisons?

Scientists have only two choices for the explanation of how life began on earth, random choice or intelligent design. As microbiologists discover the complexity of a single living cell. Random choice meaning a chance happening, without purpose, haphazard, no thought in its construction

SVP if you choose to define random choice in this way then evolution at any stage was certainly not random choice. EVOLUTION IS NONRANDOM IN THE SENSE THAT ONLY THOSE CHANGES SURVIVE THAT LEADS TO A GREATER PROBABILITY OF SURVIVING WITH TIME. THIS IS TRUE FOR QUASI-LIFE CHEMICAL EVOLUTION AS WELL THAT HAS EVENTUALLY LED TO THE GENE BASED EVOLUTION WE KNOW TODAY. The problem with quasi-life evolution is a problem of plenty. There seems to be a plethora of ways by which chemical evolution could have occurred and too few real evidence about the conditions of early earth which can decide which of the many probable paths evolution actually took. So when creationists say there exists no way by which a structure as complex as DNA could have evolved, they are completely wrong. There are many, many ways by which it could have evolved. Scientists are having a lot of difficulty in deciding which way was actually taken

 

[SVRP]

Sage wrote

I have read Hawkings through and through. Nowhere does his works convey anything of the nature you are suggesting. Either you are ignorant or you are deliberately misleading others. If latter is the case then I hope you get out of this thread immediately. If not then I prefer you study the work of the men you are quoting in entirety. You have misquoted other genuine scientists as well ,as Michael has pointed out. So is this a habit of yours?

Thank you for your concern, Sage. If I misquoted the scientists in my responses then please correct me and put the proper quote up so everyone can see it, like Michael did regarding George Wald.
(And wasn’t the conclusion in one of Stephen Hawkings’ books that the odds against the accidental formation of the universe is comparable to shaking the parts of a watch in a barrel and having them fall into place as a working timepiece? (‘Stephen Hawkings Universe’, John Boslough, 1985) What are the odds of that happening?)

Sage wrote

And I suggest everyone to stop referring to other people’s quotes or publications from the internet, as anyone can write anything in a website . Study good sources and write out the relevant informations and conclusions yourself. Links to sources are given so that others can verify what you are saying, but you must make your case yourself.

Very noble recommendation, Sage, but you know it is not the habit of everyone within this forum to do what you have suggested. And even with links to websites that support the responses, people very rarely read them with an open mind and without presuppositions.

Sage wrote

yes that’s the idea. Harmful mutations lead to death. They play no part in evolutionary process any further. But useful mutations, few as they are, not only survive in the gene pool, they are quickly transmitted throughout the species via natural selection, which favour those offsprings that have that mutation than those that do not. A small evolutionary step has been achieved. Then another helpful mutation comes along. The process continues. And mutations are not bullets, why do you give such absurd comparisons?

The ‘absurd comparison’ was from a Biology textbook, which was referenced as such.
So let’s separate fact from fiction in regards to mutations with this question. Has there ever been an observation of a mutation that has improved the genetic code by adding new genes with meaningful instructions in order to build a new physical feature? (You can reference a website for your answer.)

Sage wrote

SVP if you choose to define random choice in this way then evolution at any stage was certainly not random choice. EVOLUTION IS NONRANDOM IN THE SENSE THAT ONLY THOSE CHANGES SURVIVE THAT LEADS TO A GREATER PROBABILITY OF SURVIVING WITH TIME. THIS IS TRUE FOR QUASI-LIFE CHEMICAL EVOLUTION AS WELL THAT HAS EVENTUALLY LED TO THE GENE BASED EVOLUTION WE KNOW TODAY.

Let me rewrite your response in another way so I can understand. So in a sense mutations were not random but planned events. And evolution is not random but designed to occur that way. If I misinterpreted the above please correct me.

Sage wrote

The problem with quasi-life evolution is a problem of plenty. There seems to be a plethora of ways by which chemical evolution could have occurred and too few real evidence about the conditions of early earth which can decide which of the many probable paths evolution actually took. So when creationists say there exists no way by which a structure as complex as DNA could have evolved, they are completely wrong. There are many, many ways by which it could have evolved. Scientists are having a lot of difficulty in deciding which way was actually taken

Well, Sage, from your response it seems you believe that spontaneous generation occurred. And when you wrote ‘many, many ways by which it could have evolved’, which way do you subscribe to? If you don’t mind reciting the way the first cell occurred then I would be more than happy to read it. Just please be sure to answer how the reproductive cell components were gathered, how the correct specifications of all components appeared in the same place at the same time, how the correct components were properly assembled, how the destructive elements that were present did not overwhelm the cell assembly, and how the cell assembly was energized with life. (By the way, you only have 14.5 billion years as a time frame for all of this to happen.) Please support this with known experiments from credible scientists.

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by SVRP
The ‘absurd comparison’ was from a Biology textbook, which was referenced as such.
So let’s separate fact from fiction in regards to mutations with this question. Has there ever been an observation of a mutation that has improved the genetic code by adding new genes with meaningful instructions in order to build a new physical feature?

Actually it’s quite common: take a clone cell line (ie: E. coli). Each cell is identical. You know the DNA of the clone. Grow vats of E. Coli. (Billions and Billions of cells). Add a little sun light and the DNA in these cells will mutate (change). Keep growing the cells for a week or so. Some cells with changed DNA will use enzymes to repair the DNA, some will die due to the DNA change, some will continue to live as a small population with this DNA mutation (in the greater population of cells - we’ll just say 1000 in a trillion). Now you add an antibiotic to the cells. This antibiotic works by binding to an protein on the cell surface. Almost all of the cells in the vat die off. Nevertheless, a 1000 survive. These were that small population that had mutated DNA effecting the protein coat on the cell. You grow these cells up. Then test the DNA and find that it no longer matches your original clone DNA. The DNA change as relayed through RNA and protein production has caused something on the protein coat to slightly change (that’s the physical change you were looking for). This is what the antibiotic used to bind to the cell and kill it. You see the small change in the DNA led to a small change in the protein coat (tertiary structure) and was benifitial to the cell because it survived the antibiotic treatment.
There are 100,000+ articles on similar stuff, here’s a couple:

Characterization of the OFD1/Ofd1 genes on the human and mouse sex chromosomes and exclusion of Ofd1 for the Xpl mouse mutant small star, filled.

Thermoadaptation of alpha-galactosidase AgaB1 in Thermus thermophilus

Clinical, genetic, and biochemical characterization of a Leber hereditary optic neuropathy family containing both the 11778 and 14484 primary mutations.

Today there are small mutations in people that cause them to have a real physical difference. Let’s say the round eyes in Europeans and oval eyes in Asians.

On the side, the notion of perfect man implies (to me) a clone of humans. Does that sound like a good thing? For any change made to man would be change in perfection ergo imperfection. Scary huh?

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by SVRP
By the way, you only have 14.5 billion years as a time frame for all of this to happen.)

ONLY!?!

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by SVRP
...So in a sense mutations were not random but planned events. ...

1) mutations are random not planned (in nature - in the lab they can be planed)
2)evolution is not like a ladder with humans on top. humans are no more evolved than a spider, ant, dog …

 

[sage]

OK let me answer one by one.

Thank you for your concern, Sage. If I misquoted the scientists in my responses then please correct me and put the proper quote up so everyone can see it, like Michael did regarding George Wald.

I DID NOT SAY YOU MISQUOTED HAWKING. I said this-

I have read Hawkings through and through. Nowhere does his works convey anything of the nature you are suggesting.

by quoting one sentence out of THE NATURE OF SPACE TIME and two or three out of THE BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME you seem to conclude things that flies in the face of the conclusion one should reach by reading his entire text. For example

a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality.”

so that proves it is false? Yes it is a mathematical model- but one which is consistent with all observed facts till date. It is constantly tested against new facts and if found inconsistent is discarded and a new theory is constructed that is consistent with the new data. There exists no absolute truth and for us there exists no absolute reality. our realities change as we learn new facts and make new discoveries. There are no exceptions. 100 years ago there were physicists who proclaimed physics had become a dead subject as nothing remains to be discovered within its realm. We laugh at them today. Nodoubt future generations will be laughing at our rash proclamations that we are in possession of the truth. Hawkins warns us against such complacency and rightly too. But inspite of this I am telling you that the humble mathematical models you dismiss with disdain have a much greater probability of being true than any of the widely publicized creationist theories as they lack any coherent evidence.

Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no (beginning)… When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however,… the universe has a beginning.”

this statement is true. Universe has a beginning in real time. Real time began at the moment of the big bang. Our physics holds good upto the big bang only and not before. Before that we cannot be sure there was A PHYSICAL TIME DIMENSION AS POSTULATED BY G.R. hence we distinguish between the two by saying our time is REAL and the other IMAGINARY. But that does not mean we are saying the universe began from the time of the big bang. No. we are saying that all information prior to the big bang are beyond our reach and hence it is of no use to think about what happened BEFORE the big bang. Our world began at the time of the big bang and we can know nothing about what had happened before. It could have began at the time of the big bang. Or it could have been there forever and the big bang could have just been a phase transition for all we know. The evidence is simply NOT THERE to tilt the scale in either side.

So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.”

firstly we are not sure that universe had a beginning. Secondly the universe is supposed to have equal amounts of positive and negative energy making the sum zero. Then our universe could just be some sort of transient fluctuation in the body of the primordial vacuum. Well if that’s the sort of creator you like I will grant it to you. We could SUPPOSE ANYTHING because we have no clues to go on. If you sit in your room with your eyes closed and imagine that you are in wonderland, or in heaven, or inside a palace up in the moon, is there any way you can prove yourself wrong without opening your eyes? It is the same situation . we can think anything because there is no way to verify what really happened. I think Hawkings gave the same impression in his books. But you must read them in entirety to understand what his opinions are. Giving three disparate quotes and coming to a conclusion like the one you did is not the right way.

If I misquoted the scientists in my responses then please correct me and put the proper quote up so everyone can see it, like Michael did regarding George Wald.

SO YOU ADMIT YOU MISQUOTED GEORGE WALD. WHY MAY I ASK?

Has there ever been an observation of a mutation that has improved the genetic code by adding new genes with meaningful instructions in order to build a new physical feature? (You can reference a website for your answer.)

I think Michael gave you enough examples. Thanks Michael. Being new to the internet collecting threads would have been difficult for me.

Let me rewrite your response in another way so I can understand. So in a sense mutations were not random but planned events. And evolution is not random but designed to occur that way. If I misinterpreted the above please correct me

yes you misunderstood. MUTATION IS RANDOM. BUT EVOLUTION IS NOT. NEITHER IS IT DESIGNED. EVOLUTION CHOOSES THE MUTATIONS WHICH ARE BENEFICIAL TO THE SPECIES AND DISCARDS THOSE THAT ARE HARMFUL. IT IS SOMEWHAT LIKE THIS. TAKE A 1000 CARDS. WRITE ON THE CARDS THE NUMBERS FROM ONE TO THOUSAND(ONE NUMBER ON EACH CARD). MIX THEM WELL AND DRAW FROM THEM TWENTY CARDS ONE AT A TIME. SEE THE NUMBER WRITTEN ON EACH CARD.REJECT ALL CARDS WHICH HAS ODD NUMBER WRITTEN ON IT AND KEEP THE CARDS WITH EVEN NUMBERS. THUS YOU GET A NUMBER LIKE SAY 22486046820 WITH ALL ITS DIGITS BEING EVEN NUMBER. THE WAY YOU HAVE ORIGINALLY DRAWN THE CARDS FROM THE PILE OF 1000 IS A COMPLETELY RANDOM PROCESS-THAT IS JUST HOW MUTATIONS OCCUR. BUT THE WAY YOU REJECTED THE EVEN NUMBERS FROM THE CHOSEN TWENTY WAS NOT RANDOM. YOU FOLLOWED THE LAW –‘REJECT THE ODD NUMBERS’. THAT IS NATURAL SELECTION WHICH FOLLOWS THE LAW-‘PICK THE BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS ONLY’. THUS EVOLUTION IS THE OUTCOME OF ONE RANDOM PROCESS AND ONE NONRANDOM PROCESS. SO ONE WILL BE MISTAKEN IF ONE SAYS IT IS RANDOM, BUT IT WOULD BE ALSO A MISTAKE TO SAY IT IS DESIGNED. WHY? WRITE THE NUMBER YOU HAD GOT IN A PIECE OF PAPER. MIX THE WHOLE BUNCH OF 1000 CARDS AND PICK FROM IT ANOTHER SET OF TWENTY CARDS ONE AFTER ANOTHER AND REJECTING THE ODD NUMBERS PLACE THE EVEN DIGITS IN THE ORDER YOU HAVE GOT ANOTHER NUMBER. THE TWO PROCESSES ARE IDENTICAL BUT THE CHANCES OF YOU GETTING THE SAME NUMBER VIZ. 22486046820 IS VERY SMALL.HENCE THIS PROCESS LIKE THAT OF EVOLUTION IS NOT DESIGNED BECAUSE YOU CAN NEVER PREDICT ITS OUTCOME.

In fact evolution is much more unpredictable than this. The number of possible mutations that can occur is infinitely many. Because of this the number of possible beneficial mutations are also infinite. So there is scope for infinite variation. Even more variation is added by the dynamic nature of our planet which places new demands on life. Ice ages come and go, continents collide, mountains rise, comets crash and many of these events are unpredictable. Thus the path taken by evolution was unpredictable too. It is by chance, sheer naked chance that humans are here today. Not by any design or purpose, but by chance alone. If the Permian extinction had not had happened, if the asteroid hadn’t wiped out the dinosaurs, if the last ice age had been just a few 1000 years too long-we wouldn’t have been here. Seems almost too chancy to be true? Take a game of lottery. 1000 people have placed their bets. One of them will surely be the winner. What is the chance that the winner will be Harry of 10 Nottingham Street? ONE IN A THOUSAND! Yet he wins! WOW! THE LOTTERY MUST HAVE BEEN DESIGNED(RIGGED) SO THAT HE CAN WIN. WRONG AGAIN. ONE OF THE CONTESTANTS HAD TO WIN. BY SHEER LUCK THE CONTESTANT WHO WON WAS HARRY.
SAME THING WITH US. SOMETHING HAD TO BE THERE. BY MERE CHANCE WE HUMANS ARE THE ONES. no design, no purpose- just luck.

There are quite a few theories about early life. They were from a book in the library. Will get it as soon as I can . please wait awhile . there was something about clay crystals acting as templates to produce similar clay crystals. There were changes like crystal defects creeping in. some defects actually helped new crystals to grow faster by inducing better binding. Early natural selections favoured these crystal shapes. Soon organic compounds came in as clay is naturally associated with them(a property of clay I think). Moreover clay actually helps in producing complex organic compounds. The process went on and eventually the organic compounds became complex enough to produce more of itself(something like autocatalysis). After more stages of natural selection building on beneficial random errors we have RNA , and like and the first simple cell(much simpler than anything existing today)was born. There were many more promising theories. Will inform you about them as soon as possible.BUT I THINK MICHAEL CAN GET THEM THROUGH THE INTERNET FASTER. IT WILL BE A GREAT HELP IF YOU DO.

 

[SVRP]

Michael wrote

Today there are small mutations in people that cause them to have a real physical difference. Let’s say the round eyes in Europeans and oval eyes in Asians.

What you are referring to as mutations, Michael, I would call them dominant or submissive traits (genes) that already existed in the DNA code. The traits were always in the DNA code until they were lost through breeding.

Michael wrote

1)mutations are random not planned (in nature - in the lab they can be planed)
2)evolution is not like a ladder with humans on top. humans are no more evolved than a spider, ant, dog …

In regards to statement #1, doesn’t that contradict your ‘nonrandom’ statement in your earlier responses?
And statement #2 seems to imply that you believe there was more than one DNA code to account for the variety of the many species found on earth, i.e., dogs evolved from dog DNA, spiders from spider DNA, etc. How does that differ from the account written in the book of Genesis when God created every living creature after its kind? Wouldn’t these multiple and different DNA codes generated the same kind of variety as described in the first chapter of Genesis?
“…not one mutation that increased the efficiency of a genetically coded human protein has been found.”
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/genetic-mutations.html

Sage wrote

You have misquoted other genuine scientists as well ,as Michael has pointed out.

SVRP wrote

If I misquoted the scientists in my responses then please correct me and put the proper quote up so everyone can see it, like Michael did regarding George Wald.

Then Sage wrote

SO YOU ADMIT YOU MISQUOTED GEORGE WALD. WHY MAY I ASK?

Unfortunately, Sage, you jumped to the wrong conclusion. As you know, the quote I placed in my response from George Wald was correct and not misquoted. Michael expanded the quote and showed what George Wald had said in addition. And, as you know, the expansion of Mr. Wald’s quote did not alter my point to show there were scientists who believed life began by random choice (which was used to refute what Michael had written). You, Sage, accused that I had ‘misquoted other genuine scientists’. I, then, asked you to ‘put the proper quote up so everyone can see it, like Michael did regarding George Wald’. I used your word, ‘misquoted’, from your response so you can locate and expand the quote. But you know I didn’t misquote anyone.

SVRP wrote

Has there ever been an observation of a mutation that has improved the genetic code by adding new genes with meaningful instructions in order to build a new physical feature? (You can reference a website for your answer.)

Sage wrote

I think Michael gave you enough examples.

Yes, thank you for such in depth articles on mutations, Michael. I appreciate the effort. However the articles are describing mutations within the genes and not an increase of new genetic material on the existing genes in order to ‘evolve up’ to a new species. Dr. Ian Macreadie, who specializes in molecular biological research, affirms that “all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information)… But you never see any new information arising in a cell… we just don’t observe it happening.”
Also, this does not answer how the construction of the first living cell was made. But I have to admit in viewing the complexity of DNA and the precise work of what the living cell does, I must agree when you wrote ‘random choice doesn’t make sense’.
“…surely the incredible amount of information on the DNA in living things, equivalent to a library of a thousand 500- page books in a human being, shouts ‘Creation by a Creator!’ The more we know about the biochemical workings of living cells, the stronger the evidence becomes for the intimate involvement of a creator.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/217.asp

Sage wrote

MUTATION IS RANDOM. BUT EVOLUTION IS NOT. NEITHER IS IT DESIGNED. EVOLUTION CHOOSES THE MUTATIONS WHICH ARE BENEFICIAL TO THE SPECIES AND DISCARDS THOSE THAT ARE HARMFUL. IT IS SOMEWHAT LIKE THIS. TAKE A 1000 CARDS. WRITE ON THE CARDS THE NUMBERS FROM ONE TO THOUSAND(ONE NUMBER ON EACH CARD). MIX THEM WELL AND DRAW FROM THEM TWENTY CARDS ONE AT A TIME. SEE THE NUMBER WRITTEN ON EACH CARD.REJECT ALL CARDS WHICH HAS ODD NUMBER WRITTEN ON IT AND KEEP THE CARDS WITH EVEN NUMBERS. THUS YOU GET A NUMBER LIKE SAY 22486046820 WITH ALL ITS DIGITS BEING EVEN NUMBER. THE WAY YOU HAVE ORIGINALLY DRAWN THE CARDS FROM THE PILE OF 1000 IS A COMPLETELY RANDOM PROCESS-THAT IS JUST HOW MUTATIONS OCCUR. BUT THE WAY YOU REJECTED THE EVEN NUMBERS FROM THE CHOSEN TWENTY WAS NOT RANDOM. YOU FOLLOWED THE LAW –‘REJECT THE ODD NUMBERS’. THAT IS NATURAL SELECTION WHICH FOLLOWS THE LAW-‘PICK THE BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS ONLY’. THUS EVOLUTION IS THE OUTCOME OF ONE RANDOM PROCESS AND ONE NONRANDOM PROCESS. SO ONE WILL BE MISTAKEN IF ONE SAYS IT IS RANDOM, BUT IT WOULD BE ALSO A MISTAKE TO SAY IT IS DESIGNED. WHY? WRITE THE NUMBER YOU HAD GOT IN A PIECE OF PAPER. MIX THE WHOLE BUNCH OF 1000 CARDS AND PICK FROM IT ANOTHER SET OF TWENTY CARDS ONE AFTER ANOTHER AND REJECTING THE ODD NUMBERS PLACE THE EVEN DIGITS IN THE ORDER YOU HAVE GOT ANOTHER NUMBER. THE TWO PROCESSES ARE IDENTICAL BUT THE CHANCES OF YOU GETTING THE SAME NUMBER VIZ. 22486046820 IS VERY SMALL.HENCE THIS PROCESS LIKE THAT OF EVOLUTION IS NOT DESIGNED BECAUSE YOU CAN NEVER PREDICT ITS OUTCOME.

“Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of these conclusions is 10^4,478,296 (1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to one. This evidence suggests a Designer who designed and built the entire biosphere and, for it to function, the entire universe.”
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-317.htm

Sage wrote

Thus the path taken by evolution was unpredictable too. It is by chance, sheer naked chance that humans are here today. Not by any design or purpose, but by chance alone. If the Permian extinction had not had happened, if the asteroid hadn’t wiped out the dinosaurs, if the last ice age had been just a few 1000 years too long-we wouldn’t have been here. Seems almost too chancy to be true? Take a game of lottery. 1000 people have placed their bets. One of them will surely be the winner. What is the chance that the winner will be Harry of 10 Nottingham Street? ONE IN A THOUSAND! Yet he wins! WOW! THE LOTTERY MUST HAVE BEEN DESIGNED(RIGGED) SO THAT HE CAN WIN. WRONG AGAIN. ONE OF THE CONTESTANTS HAD TO WIN. BY SHEER LUCK THE CONTESTANT WHO WON WAS HARRY.
SAME THING WITH US. SOMETHING HAD TO BE THERE. BY MERE CHANCE WE HUMANS ARE THE ONES. no design, no purpose- just luck.

“The irony is that evolutionists would recognize that a nonrandom signal from space that carried information with meaning and purpose must have come from an intelligent extraterrestrial. Yet they consider nucleic acids in the living cell, a nonrandom sequence of nucleotides carrying far more information with precise meaning and exquisite purpose, and say it must have arrived by chance!”
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-313.htm

Sage wrote

There are quite a few theories about early life. They were from a book in the library. Will get it as soon as I can . please wait awhile . there was something about clay crystals acting as templates to produce similar clay crystals. There were changes like crystal defects creeping in. some defects actually helped new crystals to grow faster by inducing better binding. Early natural selections favoured these crystal shapes. Soon organic compounds came in as clay is naturally associated with them(a property of clay I think). Moreover clay actually helps in producing complex organic compounds. The process went on and eventually the organic compounds became complex enough to produce more of itself(something like autocatalysis). After more stages of natural selection building on beneficial random errors we have RNA , and like and the first simple cell(much simpler than anything existing today)was born. There were many more promising theories.

Unfortunately, Dr. Leslie Orgel will disagree with the use of clay as an avenue on how early life began quote:

One way around this problem is to assume that inorganic catalysts were available to ensure that only the correct nucleotides formed. For instance, when the components of nucleotides became adsorbed on the surface of some mineral, that mineral might have caused them to combine only in specific orientations. The possibility that minerals served as useful catalysts remains real, but none of the minerals tested so far has been shown to have the specificity needed to yield only nucleotides having the correct architecture… Because synthesizing nucleotides and achieving replication of RNA under plausible prebiotic conditions have proved so challenging, chemists are increasingly considering the possibility that RNA was not the first self-replicating molecule on the primitive earth - that a simpler replicating system came first. In this view, RNA would be the Frankenstein that finally displaced its inventor. A. Graham Cairns-Smith of the University of Glasgow was the first to speculate on this kind of genetic takeover. He and others argue that the components of the first genetic system were either very simple or could at least be generated simply. Cairns-Smith has also put forward one of the most radical proposals for the nature of this early genetic system. Some 30 years ago he proposed that the very first replicating system was inorganic. He envisaged irregularities in the structure of a clay - for example, an irregular distribution of cations (positively charged ions) - as the repository of genetic information. Replication would be achieved in this example if any given arrangement of the cations in a preformed layer of clay directed the synthesis of a new layer with an almost identical distribution of cations. Selection could be achieved if the distribution of cations in a layer determined how efficiently that layer would be copied. So far no one has tested this daring hypothesis in the laboratory. On theoretical grounds, however, it seems implausible. Structural irregularities in clay that were complicated enough to set the stage for the emergence of RNA probably would not be amenable to accurate self-replication.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html

“It is highly premature for [evolutionists] to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.
There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life”
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

“The structural complexity and finely tuned coordination of the bacterial flagellum attests to the work of a master engineer who designed and created the flagellum to function in a wonderfully intricate manner.”
http://answersingenesis.org/docs/4192msc1-10-2000.asp

 

[SVRP]

And now for some articles from the opposing viewpoint.

The problem with chirality
“A recent world conference on ‘The Origin of Homochirality and Life’ made it clear that the origin of this handedness is a complete mystery to evolutionists. The probability of forming one homochiral polymer of N monomers by chance = 2^–N (2 to the minus N power). For a small protein of 100 amino acids, this probability = 2^–100 (2 to the minus 100 power) = 10^–30 (10 to the minus 30 power). Note, this is the probability of any homochiral polypeptide. The probability of forming a functional homochiral polymer is much lower, since a precise amino acid sequence is required in many places. Of course, many homochiral polymers are required for life, so the probabilities must be compounded. Chance is thus not an option.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3991.asp

Is evolution true?
“If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant"…”
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/quest.htm

Some world-renown Creation scientists
http://www.creationists.org/outstanding.html

 

[Cris]

SVRP,

“If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance,

The article you quote also ends with – Complex things require intelligent design folks!

But the article doesn’t then give any examples of anything complex that has been designed by intelligence. The assumption seems to be that man is an example of intelligence and that he has designed many complex things. But has he? Can you name one complex mechanism that man has designed from scratch? There isn’t anything. Even with intelligence present everything still evolves.

An example – the modern microprocessor is probably the most complex device the world has ever seen, and clearly it is man made. But was it designed by man? No. The computer has been evolving for thousands of years, starting with simple counting devices like the abacus, but more recently it has evolved at a faster rate after electricity was harnessed. The first real electronic computer appeared in 1941 and it’s power and capabilities have been doubling approximately every 18 months ever since, and there is no end in sight.

The role of man in the evolution of the computer has not been one of a designer but of a catalyst allowing something slightly more complex to grow from something slightly less complex; a perfectly typical and classical evolutionary process that we are being able to witness. It is not that intelligence is an alternative to evolution but that intelligence is just one of the contributing processes that comprise recent evolution.

But can apparently simple things magically combine into something more complex? Doesn’t even very basic chemistry show how this occurs all the time? For example take two basic elements like Oxygen and Hydrogen; I always find it amazing how two simple gases when combined form into water and totally against intuition, and how about combining a poisonous gas like chlorine with an explosive and volatile metal like sodium, which of course results in ordinary salt (sodium chloride), vital for life.

The argument for “Intelligent Design” rests on the assumption that complex things are designed by intelligence; however, there is no evidence that anything complex has ever been designed by intelligence, as has been shown here, everything evolves.

 

[Balerion]

Chris, EXCELLENT! Way to stick it to him, dude.

Can I poke a little question into this? Ok, I'll do it anyway...

Why does intelligent design point to God? It assumes that, and I quote, that "Intelligence created the biosphere, and for it to function, the entire universe." Why, in the name of all that is good, would someone as intelligent as these people are, assume that the entire universe was created for earth to function? Does that not go against all probobility? Why the planets? Why the stars? If the earth was the single planet with life, the only body which served any purpose other than the sun, then why the planets? We know of 9 (Actually, some scientist have accepted that there is a tenth planet beyond pluto) in our solar system, and we have actual pictures of a Titan planet outside of the system-the first one every verified outside our solar system-so all this for nothing? Earth does not need Mars to function. Nor does it need Pluto. Nor Venus. Nor Jupiter. Nor Saturn. Nor Neptune. Nor Neptune, nor Mercury. So why, if the universe was created soley for the sake of the Earth, do these other planets exist?

I know that they found fossils that are possibly Martian bacteria. If they are, like many scientist believe, then does that not completely destroy the theory that the earth is the center of the universe? I won't even get into this, because right now it's only conjecture.

Finally, let me pose this: If Man was created by an intelligent being, what's to say this intelligent being wasn't from planet Mardok? (Just a nonsense name) If believers of Intelligent Design truly are going by scientific method and not basing their beliefs on an old book of stories which have never been verified, then are they open to the Intelligent Designer being an Alien? If not, why not?

JD

 

[revbill2001]

Originally posted by Michael
I posted this on a different thread before I realized how out of control it had gotten.



If the question of Intelligent Design is what you find mystifying then I suggest The Blind Watch Maker by Richard Dawkins. This is an easy to read book that will explain in layman terms how natural processes resulted in the complexity that makes up you and I. A bit simplistic but I enjoyed it and Dr. Dawkins has a dry-sarcasm I’m partial to.
The Blind Watchmaker

If the actual reason you believe in god is not due to logical methodical scientific raison d'être and on the contrary is because you have faith in God, then I’d say don’t waste your time with this sort of debate. But the book’s still a good read!

I refer you to George Carlin who said, while talking about the nose, "What was God thinking when he put that wet dripping thing directly above your mouth."

 

[DefSkeptic]

A major problem with attaching the universe to intelligent design, namely a God, is to postulate such an entity would require one to explain away the existance of such a complex being itself. I am bewildered by the so easily accepted notion of an intelligent entity being the creator of the known universe.

Don't the very same questions need to be explained with the intelligent design concept? How is the God explanation more satisfying than any other explanation? It leaves its trail of the same paradoxes of time and complexity that plagues many other explanations.

All it really amounts to is human ignorance manifested into a concept that gives a primative explanation that really doesnt answer anything. Its the intellectual equivalent of running on a treadmill, it might feel like you've accomplished something, but you are exactly where you started.

 

[SVRP]

Cris wrote

But the article doesn’t then give any examples of anything complex that has been designed by intelligence. The assumption seems to be that man is an example of intelligence and that he has designed many complex things. But has he? Can you name one complex mechanism that man has designed from scratch? There isn’t anything. Even with intelligence present everything still evolves.

What is it you are trying to imply, Cris? That man was not inventive enough to take the known materials, technologies, and tools to improve his life and world? That computers, automobiles, airplanes, telescopes, clocks, radios, telephones, televisions, hair dryers, nuclear power plants, and cameras all self-evolved? That the purposes of all these inventions are independent of man’s choice and creativity?
Even the transference of information from one source to another, no matter what the media, requires an intelligence to write it and send it, and requires an intelligence to receive and understand it. They do not self-evolve. Plus the evolutionary process of today’s computers is not independent of the guiding hand from an intelligent source to perform today’s functions. The code written into every microprocessor would not understand the random bits and bytes sent to it unless it came in a precise sequence that it understood as a command in order to respond to. If it recognizes the command, then it performs a precise function to complete the command. It transfers information to the user according to the code written within the microprocessor. Every new advancement in the microprocessor’s power and speed requires a new code (a code which is written and inputted by an intelligent source) in order to accommodate the new software for it to use. (Plus the new software is also written by an intelligent source.)
Even counting on fingers would have to be recognized by an intelligence source. Otherwise there would be no math, which would result in no computers.
A computer sitting in a field connected to an unlimited source of electricity will not self-evolve without the guiding hand of an intelligent source, regardless of how long you let it sit out there. But it is ready to perform functions, obey commands, and transfer information because of the code written in the microprocessor, a code written by an intelligent source.

Cris wrote

An example – the modern microprocessor is probably the most complex device the world has ever seen, and clearly it is man made. But was it designed by man? No.

Actually the correct answer is ‘Yes’ because the microprocessor was designed to hold the code written by man. A microprocessor without a written code can be placed within a computer, but without the code the computer can do nothing.

Cris wrote

The role of man in the evolution of the computer has not been one of a designer but of a catalyst allowing something slightly more complex to grow from something slightly less complex; a perfectly typical and classical evolutionary process that we are being able to witness. It is not that intelligence is an alternative to evolution but that intelligence is just one of the contributing processes that comprise recent evolution.

In this statement are you implying that evolution cannot exist alone without an intelligence to guide it? Please explain.

Cris wrote

The argument for “Intelligent Design” rests on the assumption that complex things are designed by intelligence; however, there is no evidence that anything complex has ever been designed by intelligence, as has been shown here, everything evolves.

And I presume from this statement that a complex nonrandom signal from space that carried information with meaning and purpose did not come from an intelligent source but from an evolved signal?
If a living cell is compared to a computer, the cell’s DNA might be considered equivalent to computer software. And the cell itself, which contains the DNA, would be equivalent to computer hardware. Just as a written computer software program determines what the computer will do, so a cell’s DNA code determines what a cell will do. It would be equivalent to a software program that could fix its own errors and reproduce itself and the computer it resides in.
“Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artifacts appear clumsy.”(‘Evolution: A theory in Crisis’, Dr. Michael Denton, 1986)

 

[Jeremy]

There are no 'intelligent' designs. Designs by their nature are driven by their requirements to perform, be it a machine to make buttons or life’s goal to reproduce itself.



In the machines case, any design that does not work is cast aside. The design will reach the level of complexity required to perform the task. Persistence and the desired outcome is the ‘intelligence’ behind the design.

With life's design, there are two outcomes: die or reproduce/survive. This very simple unintelligent choice between the two outcomes drives itself.

These two designs are neither intelligent nor complex, except to maybe humans.

The most complex design is only complex to us. We are at best nothing more then clever monkeys, with a much over inflated view of our own self importance. And if you marvel at how complex/intelligent we are as a species, then you are very vain - or dare I write, simple and unintelligent?

 

[Michael]

Michael wrote In regards to statement #1, doesn’t that contradict your ‘nonrandom’ statement in your earlier responses?

Michael:1) mutations are random not planned (in nature - in the lab they can be planed)

No not in the least. Mutations are not planned they are random. This is not that difficult, but to make sure we are both talking about apples and not mixing up the apples with oranges:
The occurrence of mutations happens randomly in DNA.
The process of evolution is selective (the process can only select from the random mutations.)

And statement #2 seems to imply that you believe there was more than one DNA code to account for the variety of the many species found on earth, i.e., dogs evolved from dog DNA, spiders from spider DNA, etc. How does that differ from the account written in the book of Genesis when God created every living creature after its kind?
Michael: evolution is not like a ladder with humans on top. humans are no more evolved than a spider, ant, dog …

Your question is about my Statement #2: I brought up this point because we, humans, are egocentric enough to see ourselves as the epitome of evolution. As if we are at the top of an evolutionary ladder. This is wrong. There is no ladder. We are not at the top of anything.
Incidentally, humans share a large amount of DNA with other creatures on Earth. You point out that there “was” more than one DNA code for everything on earth? I’m not sure what you are getting at? Yes there “is” different DNA for each creature. Dogs have evolved from wolves. So yes Dogs (Today) as we breed them continue to evolve from “Dog DNA”. Follow the path of Dogs back in time far enough and there will be a creature that was Dog’s and Man’s common ancestor.

… Dr. Ian Macreadie, who specializes in molecular biological research, affirms that “all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information)… But you never see any new information arising in a cell… we just don’t observe it happening.”

First, I think we need to agree on what is meant by information. ie: The E. coli. example. A protein with a slightly different structure is different and thus a new type of protein – perhaps the first of it kind in the history of the world. So again what is meant by information? The new protein is itself new information. Anytime a “new” protein is discovered its value is in the information it can provide. The information is directly related to its structure. I would have to say that Ian may have been taken completely out of context because given the easy to follow E. coli. example we can see the above …statements … are wrong. So my hunch is he may have been taken out of context.

Also, this does not answer how the construction of the first living cell was made. But I have to admit in viewing the complexity of DNA and the precise work of what the living cell does, I must agree when you wrote ‘random choice doesn’t make sense’. “…surely the incredible amount of information on the DNA in living things, equivalent to a library of a thousand 500- page books in a human being, shouts ‘Creation by a Creator!’ The more we know about the biochemical workings of living cells, the stronger the evidence becomes for the intimate involvement of a creator.”

Actually the opposite is true. The more we learn about living cells the more the evidence supports evolution.

“Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of these conclusions is 10^4,478,296 (1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to one. This evidence suggests a Designer who designed and built the entire biosphere and, for it to function, the entire universe.”

??

Unfortunately, Dr. Leslie Orgel will disagree with the use of clay as an avenue on how early life began quote:.

This is fine. Actually just part of the scientific process. That’s what science is all about.

“It is highly premature for [evolutionists] to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.

Again this is science not faith. And again, hopefully the LAST time I have to make this distinction. Evolution has to do with change NOT beginnings.

There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter.

Please see above.

Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible.

Evidence?
argumentum ad ignorantiam

Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life”

This is illogical. Your argument assumes that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. Science just doesn’t work that way.

“The structural complexity and finely tuned coordination of the bacterial flagellum attests to the work of a master engineer who designed and created the flagellum to function in a wonderfully intricate manner.”

This is the watchmaker argument. And is invalid. Hence we have come full circle. Place see the original post on this thread:

The problem with chirality ….. Of course, many homochiral polymers are required for life, so the probabilities must be compounded. Chance is thus not an option.”

Yes, the last time I looked into this (Biochemistry ~6 years ago) it was an interesting phenomenon. I’m not sure where the debate is at regarding chirality. However, there has never been a theory proposed in any scientific journal that proposed “We don’t understand this ergo evolution is out and god inspired creation is therefore the answer”. It’s just another fun puzzle that people try to answer using the scientific process.

Is evolution true?

Yes

“If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant"…”

OK once Again: This is the watchmaker argument:

If the question of Intelligent Design is what you find mystifying then I suggest The Blind Watch Maker by Richard Dawkins. This is an easy to read book that will explain in layman terms how natural processes resulted in the complexity that makes up you and I. A bit simplistic but I enjoyed it and Dr. Dawkins has a dry-sarcasm I’m partial to.
The Blind Watchmaker

Originally posted by Cris
… The role of man in the evolution of the computer has not been one of a designer but of a catalyst allowing something slightly more complex to grow from something slightly less complex; a perfectly typical and classical evolutionary process that we are being able to witness.

Cris, this is an interesting phenomena yet it doesn’t fit classical evolution, which involves reproduction, random DNA mutation and is centered on biological organisms. However, I understand what you mean as a loose definition of evolution, ie change - it is a fascinating notion. Nevertheless, I’m always a little leary of taking evolution out of context – it can lead to idea’s such as Social Darwinism as well as confuse people outside of the Biological/Scientific communities. And then all of a sudden Mississippi isn’t teaching evolution anymore.:bugeye:

 

[SVRP]

Thank you for a response, Michael, and I appreciate your input, even though it may appear we have differences in regard to how the origin of life began. I agree with you that we should start at a common basis in order to understand each other’s point of view. For instance, on the subject of information you wrote
Michael wrote

First, I think we need to agree on what is meant by information. ie: The E. coli. example. A protein with a slightly different structure is different and thus a new type of protein – perhaps the first of it kind in the history of the world. So again what is meant by information? The new protein is itself new information. Anytime a “new” protein is discovered its value is in the information it can provide. The information is directly related to its structure.

The DNA code has been defined as a set of instructions, analogous to an English message. The sequence of “letters” (or bases) in the code is not random or repetitive, like the letters in a written message. The code has meaning. For example, a random sequence of English letters such as ‘NKNTWEIOEIMYTNHATCESGA’ means nothing, but when the same letters are arranged ‘THE ENEMY IS NOW ATTACKING’, it becomes a meaningful message, containing meaningful information. It is the specific arrangement (or what you wrote, directly related to its structure) of letters that makes the message meaningful to someone who understands the language, and this meaningful arrangement is “information”. In the same way the DNA code has specific arrangement of “letters” (or bases) that makes the code meaningful to the living body (or cell), which understands the DNA (genetic) language. This meaningful arrangement of “letters” in the DNA code is what makes up the information that tells the body how to produce a particular physical feature or characteristic. But there is nothing in the chemical makeup of the bases in the DNA molecule that originates the communication transmitted to the living body (or cell). Leading origin-of-life researchers have noted that the distinguishing feature of living systems is not order but specified complexity (information). (Look up Charles B. Thaxton, ‘DNA, Design, and the Origin of Life’). It is the specific information written within the DNA code that researchers are noticing, and which is indicating intelligent design.

Michael wrote

I would have to say that Ian may have been taken completely out of context because given the easy to follow E. coli. example we can see the above …statements … are wrong. So my hunch is he may have been taken out of context.

The above experiment is a ‘forced’ replacement of a gene, planned by lab technicians, with a ‘new’ gene inserted into the vacant spot. This is just a ‘reshuffling’ of the genes. This is not an experiment where new genetic material is added on to an existing DNA molecular and increasing the number of genes with new genetic information. That is what Dr. Ian Macreadie was referring to. So let me repeat the question with a bit more clarity. Has there ever been an observation of a mutation that has improved the genetic code by adding new genes (adding new genetic material to an existing DNA molecule, which with its addition increases the number of genes) with meaningful instructions in order to build a new physical feature?

Michael wrote

No not in the least. Mutations are not planned they are random. This is not that difficult, but to make sure we are both talking about apples and not mixing up the apples with oranges:
The occurrence of mutations happens randomly in DNA.
The process of evolution is selective (the process can only select from the random mutations.)

Evolution is dependent on the random mutations. Therefore, if there are no mutations then there is no evolution. Did I get that right?

Michael wrote

Your question is about my Statement #2: I brought up this point because we, humans, are egocentric enough to see ourselves as the epitome of evolution. As if we are at the top of an evolutionary ladder. This is wrong. There is no ladder. We are not at the top of anything.
Incidentally, humans share a large amount of DNA with other creatures on Earth. You point out that there “was” more than one DNA code for everything on earth? I’m not sure what you are getting at? Yes there “is” different DNA for each creature. Dogs have evolved from wolves. So yes Dogs (Today) as we breed them continue to evolve from “Dog DNA”. Follow the path of Dogs back in time far enough and there will be a creature that was Dog’s and Man’s common ancestor.

Aren’t human beings at the top of the DNA ladder? Aren’t there more genetic material and information in the DNA code to construct the human body as compared to all other living creatures? That is what microbiologists and genetic scientists have found. So if dogs and man have a common ancestor, how did man get more genetic material in his DNA than a dog?

SVRP quoted

“It is highly premature for [evolutionists] to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.

Michael wrote

Again this is science not faith. And again, hopefully the LAST time I have to make this distinction. Evolution has to do with change NOT beginnings.

So what is the origin of life if, according to your earlier statement, evolution was not part of the beginnings?

SVRP wrote

Also, this does not answer how the construction of the first living cell was made. But I have to admit in viewing the complexity of DNA and the precise work of what the living cell does, I must agree when you wrote ‘random choice doesn’t make sense’. “…surely the incredible amount of information on the DNA in living things, equivalent to a library of a thousand 500- page books in a human being, shouts ‘Creation by a Creator!’ The more we know about the biochemical workings of living cells, the stronger the evidence becomes for the intimate involvement of a creator.”

Michael wrote

Actually the opposite is true. The more we learn about living cells the more the evidence supports evolution.

Actually the more we learn about the living cell the more we learn about its precision and complexity. For example, the reason why chirality in DNA molecules is a critical factor in the building blocks of life is because every single nucleotide in the DNA chain must be of one orientation (right-handed) in order for the entire chain to work. Mistakes are not tolerated. The same holds true for amino acids in proteins (left-handed) for a protein to work.
Then another factor must be considered- out of the more than 80 amino acids found on earth, only twenty are life-relevant amino acids. Now any model calculations will have to include the probability of selecting the correct twenty left-handed amino acids out of the 80-plus amino acids of equal orientation (a racemic mixture).
Other factors to consider- any protein chain can have many of each different kind of the twenty life-relevant amino acids. However, the order of the amino acids in a protein determines its function (or what you wrote earlier, directly related to its structure).
Therefore, these requirements are necessary for construction of the DNA molecule and the first cell: 1) the correct life-relevant amino acids with the proper left-handed orientation (only 20 can be chosen, the more than 60 none-life-relevant ones cannot produce life), 2) they must be placed in combinations that work (like letters into words), 3) they must be placed in chains that work (like words into sentences), 4) the same must be done with the nucleotides in the DNA chain (but with right-handed orientation). None can be random. The formation of the DNA molecular that produces the proteins required for life is extremely complex and very precise.
Microbiologist Harold Morowitz calculated the odds a cell randomly assembling under ideal conditions to be 1 chance in 10^100,000,000,000 (that’s 1 with 100 billion zeroes after it). Compared to winning a lottery with 1 chance in 10^6 (that’s 1 with six zeroes after it) or the likelihood of being struck by a meteorite, which is 1 chance in 10^12 (that’s 1 with twelve zeroes after it).
Richard Dawkins said in the book, ‘The Blind Watchmaker’, “Given infinite time, or infinite opportunities, anything is possible.” Unfortunately, we know time is not infinite. With the experimental physics of Hubble in 1929, Penzias in 1964, and Smoot in 1992, combined with the verification of general relativity, we know that time and space had a beginning. Several other methods have measured the age of the universe to a finite age of 13 to 15 billion years. With Morowitz’s odds and the time constraint of 15 billion years there is no way the first living cell could have been formed by chance. It is too short of time and highly improbable. The only alternative is intelligent design.

SVRP quoted

Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life”

Michael wrote

This is illogical. Your argument assumes that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. Science just doesn’t work that way.

It is very kind of you to credit me with all those statements that I placed in quotation marks, but I think you should read the articles they were pulled from. The link appears right next to them.
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/quest.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3991.asp
http://answersingenesis.org/docs/4192msc1-10-2000.asp
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-313.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-317.htm
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/217.asp

SVRP wrote

Is evolution true?

Michael wrote

Yes

Not according to Professor Louis Bounoure who declared in “The Advocate”(p. 17, March 8, 1984), “Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”(Professor Bounoure was a former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum. Later he became Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.)
And not according to these biologists in response to an editorial in ‘Nature’ magazine, February 26, 1981. Quote:

”As working biologists at the British Museum of Natural History we were astonished to read your editorial ’Darwin’s death in South Kensington’. How is it that a journal such as yours that is devoted to science and its practice can advocate that theory be presented as fact? This is the stuff of prejudice, not science, and as scientists our basic concern is to keep an open mind on the unknowable. Surely it should not be otherwise? You suggest that most of us would rather lose our right hands than begin a sentence with the phrase ‘If the theory of evolution is true…’ Are we to take it that evolution is a fact, proven to the limits of scientific rigor? If that is the inference then we must disagree most strongly. We have no absolute proof of the theory of evolution. What we do have is overwhelming circumstantial evidence in favor of it and as yet no better alternative. But the theory of evolution would be abandoned tomorrow if a better theory appeared.” (This letter was signed by twenty-two of the Museum’s staff of biologists and appeared in Nature magazine, Vol. 290, p. 82, March 12, 1981)

So what do these scientists know about the evidence that we don’t know in order to make them write this letter or make the above quote? If evolution was true shouldn’t they be the proponents and in the forefront proclaiming the veracity of the facts for evolution? They must see the evidence firsthand. Why would they write such a letter?

SVRP quoted

“If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant"…”

Michael wrote

OK once Again: This is the watchmaker argument:

And a very effective one.

Michael wrote

If the question of Intelligent Design is what you find mystifying then I suggest The Blind Watch Maker by Richard Dawkins. This is an easy to read book that will explain in layman terms how natural processes resulted in the complexity that makes up you and I.

Unfortuantely, Mr. Dawkins sidesteps general relativity and the Law of Entropy to give a “saleman’s” explanation of how the natural processes resulted in life. You as a scientist with a PhD should have questioned his approach instead of being “sold” on his theories.
The scientific approach on this subject is best described using this illustration. Imagine you are a forensic scientist in your town. You arrive at a location to investigate the death of someone. The lead detective at the scene approaches you and says, “From my experience, this one is a simple case. It was all accidental.” What should your response be? First of all the detective has made a presupposition. Should you take into consideration his experience or do you let the evidence speak for itself?
If you are holding on to presuppositions while approaching this subject than you are not taking the scientific approach. When approaching the unknowable you should be open-minded to all explanations no matter how ridiculous they may sound. All scientific theories must be tested. If even the Theory of Relativity is tested today through the rigors of scientific scrutiny, shouldn’t the Theory of Evolution be tested just as well? Place your presuppositions on the shelf, be open-minded, and let the evidence speak for itself.