Brilliant!! Thanks Danielscience. Here, for your edification and delight, is
Orgel's second rule:
"Evolution is cleverer than you are".
Wouldn't this 'Blind FAITH' statement be more on topic, here ??:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11114827&postcount=1
And then can you post "What the Scientific Theory of evolution actually is" with it.
oh and thanks for the "WIKI LINK"
. Are you a "Wiki Google" Scientist??
Oh, and as for specified complexity, it doesn't mean what you think it means:
Quote:
In his book The Origins of Life, Orgel coined the concept of specified complexity, to describe the criterion by which living organisms are distinguished from non-living matter.
So how does this, Refute this...
"In brief,
living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals
fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity"
Leslie E. Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall): London, 1973
Pray Tell...? When each are discussing how the Living is distinguished from the Non-Living?
And how are they distinguished again.....?????
A creationist quoting Orgel! It really doesn't get much funnier than that.
Yes, I mainly CITE Atheists (Hostile Witnesses)...you just catching on?? I get more bang for my buck
Here's his
first rule, for those amused by the irony of Daniel citing Orgel.
From your link....
Orgel's First Rule:
"Whenever a spontaneous process is too slow or too inefficient a protein will evolve to speed it up or make it more efficient."
Can you show
that first "Functional Protein" spontaneously for us?? Ya know, to SUPPORT your appeal...
First of all, The Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) Research is an INVALID Scientific Inquiry; UNLESS...somebody has OBSERVED Life from Non-Life. Why?? Well... they skipped the First Step of The Scientific Method: "Observe a Phenomenon"!! It's not "Conjure a Phenomenon" (lol).
It's Tantamount to Observing a Torch Mark on my Garage Wall; then Speculating that an Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragon caused it. And what's this??...
This is a Complete Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy) and has the Quintessential Characteristic that "it"...can NEVER be Disproved!! (How convenient).
But OOL is a special case, because what they're essentially saying with Abiogenesis is: NATURE/Natural Laws can Create Life from Non-Life.
This is still a Fallacious Argument, **and Scientific Law Violating (SEE: Law of Biogenesis) heresy, but has only ONE Category that is accessible "Nature DID IT", so it's not a COMPLETE Argument from Ignorance ( as our Invisible Fire-Breathing Dragon above). That is, we have ACCESS to the "alleged" CAUSE..."Nature". Well...
"Functional" Proteins First:
Of the ~500 Amino Acids (AA's) known, 23 of them are Alpha Amino Acids. All Life requires and exclusively uses 20 Essential Alpha AA's.
1. Please show (CITE Source) of the "Natural" Formation of ALL 20 Essential Alpha AA's from their "Building Blocks"....? (This is ONE of the dirty little secrets you never hear about, it's really quite mind numbing...but they know they can 'Whistle Past The Graveyard', because of the utter ignorance and "Blind" Faith of their target audience).
2. We could in-effect stop right here, but where's the fun in that.
3. Once you get all of the Alpha AA's "Naturally" (and...you won't), they exist "Naturally" as Stereoisomers...Enantiomers i.e., a 50/50 mix (Racemic Mixture/ Mirror Images/Chiral) Left Handed-Right Handed. But LIFE exclusively uses Left-Handed Amino's (There are Exceptions but not material and outside the scope of our discussion). To be "Functional" Proteins, you not only need their Primary Structure (Proper Sequence) but FORM (Secondary Structure) "Form = Function" motif. ONE "right-handed" AA in the chain Compromises Secondary Structure...aka: Football Bat.
In EVERY SINGLE OOL Paper with AA's/Proteins (and SUGARS---we'll get to that), take a look @ "Materials and Methods" Section
... their other dirty little secret, you'll find EVERY-SINGLE TIME the word "PURIFICATION" or equivalent. Because they **sequestered**---if Proteins, then left-handed AA's are chosen...if Sugars, then right-handed ones are chosen, before they even start on their "a priori" fairytale.
**This is Investigator Interference and PROVES the need for Intelligent Agency!
4. The DeltaG for Polymerization of AA's to form Polypeptides is "Positive" i.e., Non-Spontaneous.
5. Peptide Bond Formation is "Condensation Reactions". Ahhh, That is....Peptide Bonds won't form IN WATER, from both a Thermodynamic and Kinetic point of view... Peptide Bonds won't form between two AA zwitterions, this is the form AA's are found in Aqueous Environments.
You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse than attempting even a cogent explanation of how this could be in the Galactic Universe of Possibility, let alone actually Physically/Chemically forming a 30 mer "FUNCTIONAL" Protein, "Naturally"!!
AND...This is even before we discuss: Primary Structure, Sunlight which destroys AA's (and Nucleo-Bases), pH, Cross Reactions, Brownian Motion, Hydrolysis, and Oxidation.
I suppose this is what the Grand Poobah of Origin of Life Research (Dr. Leslie Orgel, your buddy
) was referring to, when he said...
"However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help."
Orgel LE (2008) The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology.
They were told this Years Ago, but didn't listen....
Dr Murray Eden, Professor MIT, concluded that, ‘...an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical and biological.’
Murray, Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.
regards
