Sunday, July 8, 2012

Evolutionist Has Another Honest Moment as “Thorny Questions Remain”

Stephen Jay Gould called them our “honest moments.” The truth is, as evolutionists admitted in one paper, “thorny questions remain” not merely regarding minor details of how evolution is supposed to have created all of biology, but of fundamentals such as how replication, metabolism and energy mechanisms arose. As one evolutionist explained:

It's a chicken and egg question. Scientists are in disagreement over what came first -- replication, or metabolism. But there is a third part to the equation -- and that is energy. … You need enzymes to make ATP and you need ATP to make enzymes. The question is: where did energy come from before either of these two things existed? We think that the answer may lie in simple molecules such as pyrophosphite which is chemically very similar to ATP, but has the potential to transfer energy without enzymes.

We think that the answer may lie in simple molecules? Such vacuous speculation is a slender thread of hope. In fact evolutionists haven’t got a clue. That’s not hyperbole—it’s putting it kindly.

How then, you might wonder, can evolution be a scientific fact with such fundamental scientific problems? Of course it cannot be. For that we must await the mother of all honest moments. But don’t hold your breath, for old scientists don’t change their minds, they just go away.

44 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As i mentioned in a previous post.
      Evil in the world has never been a problem for Judeo-Christian theology. It is easily explained.

      I mentioned further that disease, war and a great many problems are not a Creator Gods fault but our own (vaccinations, pesticides, growth hormone, recycling, GM food, abuse etc).

      This argument is a weak one and only attempts to shift the blame from ourselves to a Creator.

      Delete
    2. I guess the inmates of Auschwitz, Treblinka and the other extermination camps were consoled by the thought it they brought it on themselves.

      Delete
    3. The inmates should be consoled only thinking that God respect the free will (you know, the darwino-nazi will to improve the evolution)

      Delete
    4. LS -

      How dirt created life on its own is not a problem for evolutionists.

      Of course not. Because that is not evolution. That is abiogenesis. Wrong theory.

      The problem for evolutionists is who created the designer/s...

      No it isn't. ToE doesn't postulate any designer/s.

      ...and why an omnipotent and benevolent designer would create things like animals that hunt down and eat other animals, disease, criminal brains, etc.

      Again no it isn't. Since ToE does not postulate any kind of God at all - with these or any other properties.

      This is actually a problem theists must address. But it has nothing to do with ToE.

      Delete
    5. juan -

      So if I ever see someone suffering in the street in front of me, I should 'respect their free will' by completely ignoring them and not helping them in the slightest, should I?

      you know, the darwino-nazi will to improve the evolution

      'Darwinism', Nazi-ism and free will are all completely seperate topics. It rather seems you don't understand any of them to lump them together so clumsily.

      Delete
    6. Darn those darwinazi believing tsunamis

      Curious,Jason,could you easily explain a those "other" problems not explained by guilt?

      Juan,I see God respects nazis free will to slaughter ,but not those wishing to express the free will choice of not being slaughtered.

      Delete
  2. Another 'If we don't know everything then we don't know anything' post Cornelius? Slow news day, is it?

    Do you really need it pointing out again that a scientific theory is not an oracle that answers every answer in its field? There are still many questions unanswered when it comes to gravity - that doesn't mean our theory of gravity is not true. We just use it as a framework for future research. Because that is how scientific theories work.

    ReplyDelete
  3. At the 6:00 minute of the following video, Chris Ashcraft PhD in molecular biology, gives a small glimpse of just how immense this 'chicken and egg' problem for ATP is for neo-Darwinists,

    Evolution vs ATP Synthase - Molecular Machine - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012706

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ritchie

    Another 'If we don't know everything then we don't know anything' post Cornelius? Slow news day, is it?


    Every day for Cornelius is a slow day. He ran out of ideas years ago and just has a handful of Creationist memes he recycles over and over and over.

    Let's see, there's

    - Evolution can't explain this detail so all of evolution is false. (i.e. science doesn't know everything so it doesn't know anything, as already pointed out in this OP)

    - It's soooo complex that evolution didn't do it.

    - It's soooo improbable that evolution didn't do it.

    - "God wouldn't have done it that way" is the only evidence offered for evolution.

    - Equivocate over the term 'evolution' meaning both the fact and the theory.

    About the only time we see any creativity is when CH occasionally combines two of the memes in one rant. Otherwise it's propaganda business as usual. Seems like he'd save himself lots of time if he just numbered them and posted "Aha evos! Number three!!" :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thorton, Its amazing how your need to be a A-O troll overides your conscious understanding that only ignorant people engage in such actions. What you dont seem to understand is that those of us who read your posts can only conclude that your are simply an ignorant Troll. But its becoming painfully apparent that you think your belligerence somehow enhances your credibility. It doesent, it just makes you the staggering drunk good for entertainment as he makes a fool of himself. So I have a suggestion. Why dont you go post on one of those angry atheist websites where they will appreciate your childish drivel and welcome all your advances to mentally masturbate with you because trust me, Im calling you out on it every time A-O!

      Delete
    2. Laughs! Lots of childish posturing from you PG, but I note you couldn't refute a single thing I described.

      I guess when childish posturing is all the Creationists have, it's all they can bring to the party.

      Have you read anything from the journal dedicated to photosynthesis research yet? Of course you haven't. Why bother learning when ignorance is so much easier, eh?

      Delete
    3. PG

      because trust me, Im calling you out on it every time A-O!


      Go for it PG.

      Why don't you start by giving us the IDC explanation for the spatial and temporal patterns seen in the fossil record over the last 600 MY. Don't forget to include the five major mass extinction events.

      Talk is cheap PG. Show us what ya got.

      Delete
    4. You just dont get it Thorton . Its obvious that you dont come on this blog to have intelligent discourse but to troll blogs and insult those who disagree with you. So excuse me if I dont have any respect for you or anything you have to say.

      And as you well know, we are called not to throw our pearls before swine like you!

      what you are being called out today for is for you to provide scientific evidence that what Dr Hunter blogged today is incorrect?

      Present them now or we will simply conclude ....again....that you just an A-O troll!

      Now Hurry up with it, Im waiting!

      Delete
    5. PG

      You just dont get it Thorton.


      I get that just like every other Creationist all you have is childish posturing and can't back up a single thing you say.

      what you are being called out today for is for you to provide scientific evidence that what Dr Hunter blogged today is incorrect?

      CH today used his standard Creationist meme Number 1: "Evolution can't explain this detail so all of evolution is false"

      The burden of proof is on him to show his assertion is correct, not on anyone else to disprove his strawman.

      I take it you have no clue how science actually works.

      Delete
    6. Wrong! Dr. hunter is raising an issue:
      Can scientist really represent that evolution is a fact using speculation and before "thorny questions" have been properly addressed with evidence? Dr. hunter goes further and actually provides evidence of a clear case of speculation in a paper. Speculation and glossing over "thorny issues" maybe science to you, but its you dont seem to have a clue most people are going to be more demanding and wait for the actual empirical evidence!

      So we can conclude the following:

      TOTAL SCORE:

      DAY 1) DR. HUNTER 1 POINT THORTON 0 POINT
      DAY 2)

      So today's winner is DR. Hunter!


      BETTER LUCK TOMORROW.

      Delete
    7. PG -

      If I might butt in...?

      Wrong! Dr. hunter is raising an issue:
      Can scientist really represent that evolution is a fact using speculation and before "thorny questions" have been properly addressed with evidence?


      Scientists can indeed assert that evolution is fact. They can do this because they have an overwhelming abundance of evidence supporting this.

      The 'thorny questions' quote was made by Gould about "how Nature was able to accumulate, activate and exploit the orthophosphate group from geological sources with both poorly solubility and low chemical activity." He was not saying that 'thorny questions' remain as to the viability of evolution as a scientific theory. Hunter just used the quote to make this sound the case. That is called a quote-mine. It is a reprehensible tactic.

      Dr. hunter goes further and actually provides evidence of a clear case of speculation in a paper.

      Where? There is no speculation in the 'thorny questions' quote, and the longer quote is from a news article, not a scientific paper.

      Moreover, there is nothing wrong with speculation per say. That is how we form hypotheses - we gather data, speculate on what might account for that data, and then test out these speculations (called hypotheses). It is a perfectly legitimate part of the scientific process.

      Moreover, Cornelius insinuates that the viability of evolution hangs on this 'slender' piece of speculation. But that is totally incorrect. Even if this hypothesis was wrong, it would not harm ToE at all, because it is no shame at all in science to admit you have a mystery.

      So no, Cornelius has not backed up any assertions with empirical evidence. He has quote-mined and fought straw men (which is quite standard fare for Cornelius, I'm afraid).

      Thornton is quite correct when he says the underlying argument of the OP is "Evolution can't explain this detail so all of evolution is false. (i.e. science doesn't know everything so it doesn't know anything)." This is a fallacy Cornelius falls victim to with shocking regularity. In fact, the majority of his posts can be summarised as "Ah HA, evolutionists, can you explain THIS new discovery...?" It just betrays Cornelius' considerable ignorance as to how science actually works.

      Delete
    8. PG

      Can scientist really represent that evolution is a fact using speculation and before "thorny questions" have been properly addressed with evidence?


      Yes, it can. The 'speculation' and 'thorny questions' in this case are over one small technical detail and don't cast the slightest doubt on the overall well established fact of evolution.

      It is impossible to find *any* scientific theory that has perfect knowledge of every aspect of the details. Plate tectonics, germs as disease vectors, even gravity all have their 'thorny questions' with details yet all are still factual.

      That science doesn't know everything doesn't negate the huge amount science does know. You really are quite ignorant on how science works.

      Delete
    9. PG stated:
      "Can scientist really represent that evolution is a fact using speculation and before "thorny questions" have been properly addressed with evidence?"

      Thorton stated:
      Yes it can!

      Thank you Thorton for proving my point, I dont think nothing else needs to be said..


      Im sure you dont mind if I use this as my Blog signature for awhile...

      Delete
    10. PG

      Thank you Thorton for proving my point, I dont think nothing else needs to be said..

      Im sure you dont mind if I use this as my Blog signature for awhile...


      Since lying through quote-mining is SOP for Creationists, go right ahead.

      Pity you're not honest or educated enough to address the points made but hey - if you were honest or educated you wouldn't be a Creationist.

      Delete
    11. PG -

      Thank you Thorton for proving my point, I dont think nothing else needs to be said..

      Ah, forgive me. I see you are already familiar with quote-mining. Classy.

      Delete
    12. Quote Thorton:

      """""""""Why don't you start by giving us the IDC explanation for the spatial and temporal patterns seen in the fossil record over the last 600 MY. Don't forget to include the five major mass extinction events."""""""""

      I thought that a scientific theory does not have to address every detail to be valid.

      Even so, I'll attempt an explanation. Some theologies say that there was a series of creations and destruction. This would actually fit the fossil evidence better than the ToE, with all its gradualism. This even explains he mass extinction events.

      If you studied the history of something made by humans like calculating devices, and arranged pictures of them in temporal order, you would get something that resembled the fossil record. Anthropologists have just that with stone age tool kits. So the fossil record really does look like it was designed.

      Delete
    13. nat -

      Some theologies say that there was a series of creations and destruction.

      That's not an explanation of the patterns in the fossil record. That is merely stating the patterns we see in the fossil record.

      Explaining them would entail stating why there were there. Where is the sense in a Creator creating cycles of creation and destruction? Why wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient designer get it all right the first time?

      If you studied the history of something made by humans like calculating devices, and arranged pictures of them in temporal order, you would get something that resembled the fossil record. Anthropologists have just that with stone age tool kits. So the fossil record really does look like it was designed.

      It does not. The fossil record clearly shows nested hierarchies of biological features. This makes perfect sense under ToE, but it is not a pattern IDC necessitates. I mean it doesn't exactly REFUTE IDC but IDC doesn't account for it either.

      Additionally (and this is rather tangental, but a fun train of thought to follow), when you look at the history of designed objects, you generally see steady improvements. Designed objects gradually become more complex, some designs are tried out and then some are built on while others are discarded... it's basically an ongoing process of trial and error to make improvements. And this is a necessary process because humans need to experiment. We need to try things out to see if they will work.

      Life on Earth too is a progression from simply to complex. But if a designer was omnipotent and omniscient, then why would s/he ever need to experiment? Why would s/he ever need to start simple and gradually build complexity? What restrains them from creating a creature which is as complex as one they would ever build right on day one? In other words, doesn't the gradual nature of the development of life on Earth rather suggest that if it had a desinger, that designer would not be omnipotent and omniscient?

      Delete
    14. natschuster

      I thought that a scientific theory does not have to address every detail to be valid.


      But it has to address many, if not most of them satisfactorily. ToE does. Creationism doesn't.

      Even so, I'll attempt an explanation. Some theologies say that there was a series of creations and destruction. This would actually fit the fossil evidence better than the ToE, with all its gradualism. This even explains he mass extinction events.

      Yeah nat, that's a heck of an explanation. "Some good stuff happened, then some bad stuff, then some more good stuff". I'll tell the paleontology and genetics labs to start closing their doors.

      If you studied the history of something made by humans like calculating devices, and arranged pictures of them in temporal order, you would get something that resembled the fossil record. Anthropologists have just that with stone age tool kits. So the fossil record really does look like it was designed.

      Calculating devices weren't alive and don't self-reproduce.

      Delete
    15. Thorton:

      If a creator were experimenting and testing things and improving things, then we would expect to see something like the fossil record. Didn't Cuvier theorize about cycles of mass destruction based on the fossil record.

      And my example of calculating devices was to address the point that the history of designed things can resemble the fossil record.

      Delete
    16. natschuster

      If a creator were experimenting and testing things and improving things, then we would expect to see something like the fossil record.


      So your Creator God was an incompetent bumbler who tried and failed millions of times over 600 million years before He got it right, assuming He finally did?

      Interesting.

      Delete
  5. Dr. Hunter, I don't know if you have seen this article yet, but if not, this article should interest you very much!

    Scientists say NASA's 'new arsenic form of life' was untrue - July 9, 2012
    Excerpt: "Contrary to an original report, the new research clearly shows that the bacterium, GFAJ-1, cannot substitute arsenic for phosphorus to survive," said a statement by the US journal Science, a prestigious, peer-reviewed magazine.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-07-scientists-nasa-arsenic-life-untrue.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ritchie said, "How dirt created life on its own is not a problem for evolutionists.

    Of course not. Because that is not evolution. That is abiogenesis. Wrong theory."

    ---

    Biological evolution vs. Chemical evolution (abiogenesis). But it's evolution nevertheless. We understand the difference. You can't have neo-Darwinian mechanisms until you have an actual reproducing organism, etc. Origin of Life is not a problem within the scope of those whose focus is solely on the problems of biological evolution or neo-Darwinism. That's elementary.


    But chemical evolution and abiogenesis are huge problems for evolutionists whose focus is origin of life research and therefore. This blog is not limited to the problems of neo-Darwinism. Evolution can refer to cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution, and other things.

    Origin of life research that is conducted by evolutionists whose focus is within that realm, are looking for how the first life evolved. It is still evolution even though a distinction is made between the mechanisms of origin of life and those of neo-Darwinism and biological evolution.

    But, Darwin's Origin of Species builds its case on arguments from theology. Gould argued, "if God had made the panda, he would have done a neater job".

    It's a weird quirk of evolutionists to say things like this all the time and then not see that their making a theological argument. Whenever you say, "if God..." you're making a theological statement are you not???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Neal -

      Biological evolution vs. Chemical evolution (abiogenesis).

      When you get down to talking about tiny, self-replicating molecules, then the line between biology and chemistry is very arbitrary and vague.

      You can't have neo-Darwinian mechanisms until you have an actual reproducing organism, etc.

      That is correct. But ToE does not state how this first reproducing mechanism came about. That is a different theory - abiogenesis.

      I do agree that abiogenesis and evolution are very closely related. But to criticise ToE for not accounting for how life started is a fallacy. ToE was never meant to explain any such thing.

      Evolution can refer to cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution, and other things.

      True, but then you are not referring to anything to do with Darwin or ToE. ToE is a theory of biology; nothing more, nothing less.

      But, Darwin's Origin of Species builds its case on arguments from theology.

      No it does not. It is a scientific theory built upon years of observations and data. It has nothing at all to do with theology, no matter what Cornelius says on the issue.

      Whenever you say, "if God..." you're making a theological statement are you not???

      Yes. But ToE is not built on such reasoning. Cornelius insists it is. But Cornelius is flat wrong on this point. ToE is built upon 150 years of empirical research and scientific extrapolation.

      Delete
  7. Of note:

    ATP: The Perfect Energy Currency for the Cell - Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
    Excerpt: In manufacturing terms, the ATP (Synthase) molecule is a machine with a level of organization on the order of a research microscope or a standard television (Darnell, Lodish, and Baltimore, 1996).
    http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp

    ReplyDelete
  8. It does not surprise me in the least that Thorton chooses to ignore having to account for the ATP, because after he filters it though his religious belief system, it comes out the other side as just a small technical detail. How convenient!

    Dr. Hunter is correct, Religion drives science, and it matters!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are you on about, PG?

      As Thorton pointed out, scientists don't know everything. They are constrained by the data available.

      As more data become available (and those data don't just pop out of nowhere, they have to be searched for) scientific understanding has something to work with.

      What does your understanding work with?

      Delete
    2. Pedant
      As Thorton pointed out, scientists don't know everything. They are constrained by the data available.

      As more data become available (and those data don't just pop out of nowhere, they have to be searched for) scientific understanding has something to work with.


      No, scientists do not know everything but they know enough....enough to be able to see that this existence of ours couldn't possibly be anything but the output of an intelligent entity.
      And the more they learn, the more obvious it becomes.

      Delete
    3. watendlath -

      That is nothing more than a dogmatic, religious assertion.

      Delete
  9. I am amazed how off topic most of this discussion is and how nasty the tome of many of the comments are. Energy is the ugly stepchild in origin of life research and is mostly ignored! If one believes that there would be plenty of energy in a prebiotic world to drive any chemical process, you are right. Unfortunately, that kind of energy almost always leads to decomposition and destruction, rather than the formation of complex organic molecules. That the controlled energy for the formation of life’s molecules could have been derived from pyrophosphites is a conjecture that is totally unproven and should be investigated further. For now, we know nothing about how energy could have been used to form the first molecules of life.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Unfortunately, that kind of energy almost always leads to decomposition and destruction, rather than the formation of complex organic molecules.

    Really? And your evidence for this is...? Almost always = 99.99%? 99%? 97%?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Amazing how the atheists rail against the notion of a God who can let harm and wickedness be visited upon the innocent, yet never a word of wonder, in the first place, about the awesome beauty of the innocent, the very touchstone of the anguish they express.

    The sublime beauty of goodness is understood as a 'given' - by courtesy of random chance, of course. In Aldous Huxley's essay on comparative religion, The Perennial Philosophy, he quotes an epigram of an Eastern sage, to the effect that pigs eat acorns, yet consider neither the oak they grew on, nor the sun and rain that nourished it. The swinish overtones are unfortunate; it is enough to reflect on their insensate partiality in their judgements.

    Indeed, innocent creatures of all kinds in their various ways, but particularly human beings, and foremost among them them, children. If there is a sound on earth more heavenly than the ecstatic laughter of young children at play, I've not heard it.

    As regards the animal kingdom, I wonder if the jaded atheist could ever have written Blake's poem The Tiger: "Tiger, tiger, burning bright..." I suspect their Health and Safety officials would like to have it expunged from poetry books, in case it frightened the children.

    Strange how Blake raised the very same question in principle, when he asks in the poem:

    "When the stars threw down their spears,
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile His work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

    .... yet was humble enough to realise that compared to his Christian God, whatever he could think or imagine would be paltry and inadequate. Who was he to rail against a God of a heroic goodness proved beyond the imagination, if He saw fit to create the tiger as well as the lamb? That is the thing about the sin of presumption: it is the open gateway to all other sins.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The following video gives a good, simple, overview of why adding raw energy to a 'open system' increases entropy and why energy must be 'directed':

    Evolution Vs. Thermodynamics - Open System Refutation - Thomas Kindell - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4143014

    Moreover adding raw heat energy certainly is antagonistic to any materialistic Origin Of Life scenario tested thus far:

    Refutation Of Hyperthermophile Origin Of Life scenario
    Excerpt: While life, if appropriately designed, can survive under extreme physical and chemical conditions, it cannot originate under those conditions. High temperatures are especially catastrophic for evolutionary models. The higher the temperature climbs, the shorter the half-life for all the crucial building block molecules,
    http://www.reasons.org/LateHeavyBombardmentIntensityandtheOriginofLife

    The origin of life--did it occur at high temperatures?
    Excerpt: Prebiotic chemistry points to a low-temperature origin because most biochemicals decompose rather rapidly at temperatures of 100 degrees C (e.g., half-lives are 73 min for ribose, 21 days for cytosine, and 204 days for adenine).
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11539558

    Chemist explores the membranous origins of the first living cell:
    Excerpt: Conditions in geothermal springs and similar extreme environments just do not favor membrane formation, which is inhibited or disrupted by acidity, dissolved salts, high temperatures, and calcium, iron, and magnesium ions. Furthermore, mineral surfaces in these clay-lined pools tend to remove phosphates and organic chemicals from the solution. "We have to face up to the biophysical facts of life," Deamer said. "Hot, acidic hydrothermal systems are not conducive to self-assembly processes."
    http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/04-03/deamer.asp

    Nick Lane Takes on the Origin of Life and DNA - Jonathan McLatchie - July 2010
    Excerpt: numerous problems abound for the hydrothermal vent hypothesis for the origin of life,,,, For example, as Stanley Miller has pointed out, the polymers are "too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment." Miller has also noted that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water when the water boils. Intense heating also has the tendency to degrade amino acids such as serine and threonine. A more damning problem lies in the fact that the homochirality of the amino acids is destroyed by heating.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/07/nick_lane_and_the_ten_great_in036101.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As well, it is found that DNA is protected, in a finely tuned way, from the damaging energy of UV-radiation:

      DNA Optimized for Photostability
      Excerpt: These nucleobases maximally absorb UV-radiation at the same wavelengths that are most effectively shielded by ozone. Moreover, the chemical structures of the nucleobases of DNA allow the UV-radiation to be efficiently radiated away after it has been absorbed, restricting the opportunity for damage.
      http://www.reasons.org/dna-soaks-suns-rays

      As well there are found to be proteins that protect against unwanted thermal energy:

      Heat shock proteins:
      Excerpt: They play an important role in protein-protein interactions such as folding and assisting in the establishment of proper protein conformation (shape) and prevention of unwanted protein aggregation.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_shock_protein

      Another related piece of evidence that energy must be precisely 'directed' for biological life to be possible is this:

      The size of light's wavelengths and the constraints on the size allowable for the protein molecules of organic life, also seem to be tailor-made for each other. This "tailor-made fit" allows photosynthesis, the miracle of sight, and many other things that are necessary for human life. These specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe's entire range of electromagnetic emissions. Like water, visible light also appears to be of optimal biological utility (Denton; Gonzalez; Richards).

      Extreme Fine Tuning of Light for Life and Scientific Discovery - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/w/7715887

      Fine Tuning Of Universal Constants, Particularly Light - Walter Bradley - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491552

      Fine Tuning Of Light to the Atmosphere, to Biological Life, and to Water - graphs
      http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMTljaGh4MmdnOQ

      Delete
    2. Further notes:

      The Primordial Soup Myth:
      Excerpt: "Accordingly, Abelson(1966), Hull(1960), Sillen(1965), and many others have criticized the hypothesis that the primitive ocean, unlike the contemporary ocean, was a "thick soup" containing all of the micromolecules required for the next stage of molecular evolution. The concept of a primitive "thick soup" or "primordial broth" is one of the most persistent ideas at the same time that is most strongly contraindicated by thermodynamic reasoning and by lack of experimental support." - Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose on page 37 in Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life.
      http://theory-of-evolution.net/chap11/primordial-soup-myth.php

      New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of 'Primordial Soup' as the Origin of Life - Feb. 2010
      "Despite bioenergetic and thermodynamic failings the 80-year-old concept of primordial soup remains central to mainstream thinking on the origin of life, But soup has no capacity for producing the energy vital for life."
      William Martin - an evolutionary biologist
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm

      Delete
    3. bornagain77: The following video gives a good, simple, overview of why adding raw energy to a 'open system' increases entropy and why energy must be 'directed'

      Your video is listed as dangerous by McAfee.

      Hurricanes are organized systems of lower entropy due to the uneven heating of the Earth's surface. While total entropy increases—as it always does—, "adding raw energy to a 'open system'" can create localized regions of lower entropy.

      Delete
    4. Hurricanes are organized systems of lower entropy due to the uneven heating of the Earth's surface

      Well that's all you need, guess we can call off OOL research. Thank you for solving that Zach!

      Delete
    5. bornagain77: Well that's all you need, guess we can call off OOL research.

      Not at all. We simply responded to your claim that "adding raw energy to a 'open system'" can't result in localized areas of low entropy.

      Delete
  13. Of related note:

    Machine Revolution: More Details Emerge on ATP Synthase and Its Exquisite Design (4 New Papers On The Molecular Machine ATP Synthase Are Highlighted) - July 2012
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/the_other_rotar061761.html

    ReplyDelete