Evolution or not?

Manys scientists have been and are religions, Stephen Jay Gould, the American evolution scientist that died a few years ago, was Catholic. It was no problem for him though.

Consider some of the complex mechanisms in the cell, ATP synthase, RNA polymerase, Dynein dynactin transport systems, ribosome translation processes. proteosomes, etc. How did they get built by random processes. Its like suggesting the Hoover dam just built itself. ATP synthase is just like a rotary engine. Do engines just build themselves? Ribosomes have 220,000 specifically placed atoms in both of their sub units. Its an entire factory that builds proteins from the ground up. Factories just build themselves? Polymerases which transcribe at a rate of 850

nucleotides per second and can correct mistakes on the fly just came about by accident.

There's many languages within a cell. The DNA code, the codon and anticodon code, the glycogen code, which encodes more information than the DNA code, and others.

There are splicing programs, editing programs, elimination systems, signaling and transport systems, systems that allow only certain compounds in and out of the cell.

Finally there is encoded complex specified information throughout the cell, billions and billions of bits of it.

Simple reasoning says all these complex, interacting, specified and coherent systems are the result of design.

Abductive reasoning would also conclude this since after all we don't see this degree of complexity ever occurring by random actions, do we?

I told you before, and maybe i should repeat it again. All this stuff was found out by biology. It not some special secrets you discovered and the biologists will go "OOOH AAH we never knew organisme were that complex". The biologists who off course believe in evolution discivered these things working on ideas that are completely entangled with evolution. Then thet wrote down their discoveries you read 0,00001 % of it and by some bizarre reasoning you know think you know something the biologist dont lol.

Your reasoning is like reading someone's biography and then thinking you can surprise the guy with information from his own biograpy that he wrote himself lol.

Well, biology and biochemistry. Sure, we are discovering these complex and specified systems, but from real life experience they resemble factories, information systems,

computer processing systems, even garbage removal systems.

The DNA information library, messenger RNA transport system, and ribosomal translational process actually looks quite analogous to the Cad Cam technology found at the Boeing aircraft plant. Computer code is translated into machine code and then aircraft parts are manufactured by robots. This is pretty much the process how proteins are built.

Does anyone have any doubt that this process was designed, engineered and constructed. Does anyone think this technology came about by some random and incoherent process. 😕

It's just a superficial analogy, like saying "bikes can go fast, and horses can go fast, so bikes are horses".

Anything remembles anything really, a tree is like a tower because both are tall, a whale is like a ship becaue they are big things that move in the ocean. The argument is made by picking some random things that are the same and just ignore the things that are different, and then "proove" that they are the same. Just ignore bikes have legs and horses have legs.

A factory has a manager for instance surpervising how things work. Its not like he just design the factory and then leaves forever. He stays and it cannot run without him. The cell lacks a central manager and works in a completely different way.

The factory cannot repair itself either if half of it burns. Organisms can do that.

Factories dont get babies either :)

Factories don't build themselves either do they? 😕

If you understand both of the processes that I discussed, transcription and translation of proteins vs. Cad Cam technology, then you should be able to describe why they are superficially analogous, right? 😕

Thanks Razz, almost forgot. Even if the first cell built itself without being designed and constructed, how did the cell propagate itself. Mitosis or cell division is an extremely complicated process which is subdivided into for seperate processes? If the First cell hadn't evolved the capability yet then how did that first cell reproduce? 😕

No, but cells and organisms builds themselves. And their DNA happened through evolution over 3,5 billion years or so. That's what science says.

First answer post 173 Optimissed and I'll answer yours? 😕

Well for instance cad cam tehnology isnt 3,5 billion years old and is vaslty less complex, as in probably milliond of times less complex. Its designed by some people with a specific purpuse, and protein translation just happened through evolution.

Its like explaining why a bycicle and a horse are different really. I dont really understand what you mean. Nature can create caves by underwater currents and humans and moles can make them by digging, they are both caves but got "created" by different ways, by themselves, by intelligent planned human design and "by instinct" since i assume moles do not draw a map of the cave system they want to make and assess time schedules before they start.

Its no mystery stuff that just "appeared" in nature looks like something humans designed. You dont go "OMG design created this" if you find a cave created by water right?

Well we dont know that yet, and so what? I think the field of research is called abiogenesis and their problem is that theres lots of theories and models and such, but no way to test them since you cannot go back in time to when life started and see what happened. Even when you can recreate some processes that end with life in a lab, you cannot know if this is the way it happened.

The first cells and organic molecules no doubly were much less complex than those that exist today. I recall some theories that only RNA existed for a while and not DNA.

As I already explained to you, science has lots and lots of holes and unknown things. Why i need to tell you again? Its not drama that there's riddles in science, its "yes yes, we know that already, working on it, and a thousand more problems you dont know about, and when we solve these thousend problems, we will get ten thousand more that we dont understand. Thats what science does".

A computer program that converts into machine code and builds airplane parts by robots is a simple process? Are you just guessing Razz? 😕

I find it fascinating that science has still not discovered how non-life turned into life and exactly when. At least I think they haven't yet. Last time I looked it was still a mystery...

Rybozyme engineering is a joke Razz. First the early earth atmosphere wasn't a reducing one. The Urey-Miller experiment had all its parameters wrong. They used methane and ammonia which wasn't present on the early earth, so no reducing atmosphere which is necessary for organic reactions. They also used electricity to promote chemical interactions, that wasn't present in an early earth atmosphere. Also, only a smidgen of amino acids formed over a period of years, and it was only 2% of the compound mixture. That presents a major problem because amino acids will form bonds with other molecules and compounds before it will form peptide bonds with themselves. Another major problem is the chirality problem. The experiment formed amino acids of equal chirality while life uses only left handed amino acids save one.

And we haven't even started to try and make a cell yet.

Compared with a cell, yes. I remember a scientist estimated one single cell to be more complex than an entire city.

So what?

I can explain for now third time, science does not yet know many things. Its not a discussion if I explain things to you and you just pretend not to hear them or whatever it is you do.

I dont care if you find many problems in biology, and no scientists care either. You need to understand how science works if you want to discuss it.

A major problem for Rybozyme engineering is that ribose doesn't form in the presence of purine and pyramadine bases. That means that we can't even build an RNA molecule. That's a big deal. Even if they could self arrange we would need nucleic acids. It turns out that Uracil is extremely unstable and lasts only a few minutes at low temperature. Now raise the temperature for chemical reactivity and it degrades even faster. Uracil is necessary to make nucleic acids which are necessary to make RNA molecules. Also hydrogen bonds between nucleic acids are unstable. That means the RNA molecule will fall apart before it is even built.

The next problem is the specified information needed for the molecule. The nucleotides need to be arranged in the correct order for a functioning molecule. How does that happen.

Another huge problem would be a template molecule for a replicase, assuming a replicase was around. One would need a library the weight of the earth to match a replicase for transcription.

Now your problems are just beginning. I'll continue on that after a break.

I am sure also many experiments have been made in lots of labs across the globe since this Urey-Miller experiment that i never heard about. Its from 1952 according to wikipedia, its so long ago that no scientist working today would even have heard about it or would even take it seriously.

Not being a scientist myself, I find it strange they care so little about the history of their discipline, for instance they dont care at all what so ever what Darwin wrote because the newer stuff is better. And yes it is, but still its weird to me they are completely uninterested in him :)

Only people reading Darwin today are historians of science and creationsts, the biologists dont care anymore lol.

The Urey-Miller experiment is still taught in high school biology classes Razz. It was used at the time and for years that life could form in an early earth environment.

Its been completely discredited except by a few people today. Oh well, my last post shows why RNA molecules self arranging is a crock.