creation arguement!

‘When we come to examine the simplest known organism capable of independent existence, the situation becomes even more fantastic. In the DNA chain of the chromosome of the bacterium E. coli, a favourite organism used by molecular biologists, the [DNA] helix consists of 3-4 million base pairs. These are all arranged in a sequence that is ’meaningful’ in the sense that it gives rise to enzyme molecules which fit the various metabolites and products used by the cell. This unique sequence represents a choice of one out of 102,000,000 alternative ways of arranging the bases! We are compelled to conclude that the origin of the first life was a unique event, which cannot be discussed in terms of probability.’5
Notice that this refers only to the correct arrangement of already formed bases. Harold J. Morowitz, Professor of Biophysics at Yale University, has taken into account the covalent bond energies required to actually form such a DNA molecule. He arrives at a probability figure for the spontaneous formation of one complete bacterium of Escherichia coli in the history of the universe, of less than one chance in 10 to the power 100 billion (which can be written 10-100,000,000,000).6Such numbers are far too large for most people to comprehend. However, the late Sir Fred Hoyle, who was Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University and was not a Christian, illustrated the point this way: ’Now imagine 1050 blind persons [that’s 100,000 billion billion billion billion billion peoplestanding shoulder to shoulder, they would more than fill our entire planetary system] each with a scrambled Rubik cube and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling [random variation] of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.so is creation so silly to believe?

Indeed it is impossible to discuss the probablity of the first life, but then why this: Contradictory, no? How can you say that it is impossible to construct probabilities and then go ahead and construct them? I'm not impressed.Anyway, E. coli may be a "simple" organism, but it is by no means the simplest possible. That would be the so-called "minimal organism" which, of course, doesn't exist.You have to remember that like all current life, E. Coli is the result of a billion years of adaptation. There's no reason at all to assume that the first life had any kind of similarity whatsoever to E. Coli. So the odds of E. Coli arising spontaneously are totally irrelavant. What I always wonder is why creationists feel free to assume that low probability = no probability. That shows a blatant disregard for the mathematics that they claim to be using. There's as big a difference between non-zero and zero as there is between something and nothing.

Mathematically you're right of course. But when the probability gets low enough then treating it as zero isn't such an error.You're original argument is more to the point. I've never read anything by anyone researching this that suggests that a DNA based organism was the first life.The calculations on E. Coli are a fairly typical creationist strawman.

Well, it may or may not be. If this is the kind of argument that you want to suggest to support it then I guess it is. The agrument above is completly silly.It is a much more sophisticated understanding of the issues that has long ago taken us to the conclusion that the first self replicators where certainly not DNA based or anything like the complexity of E. Coli. So why are you bothering with such nonsense?There are a number of areas of research ongoing. These are by no means reaching the point where we can say this is how life began. We may never reach that point. We will probably reach a point where we have a few candidate mechanisms for life arising. We may not be able to pick which one it was. We are not there yet either.And so what? Once life arises then we see the evolutionary process taking over. Are you suggesting that because we don't understand abiogenesis we don't understand evolution?

What this ammounts to is an Argument from Incredulity.What is important in the probabilities, as far as evolution is concerned, is not the odds of any particular organism arising or adapting in any particular way.What is important is the fact that there were enormous numbers of organic molecules in the "soup", and they spent their time combining and recombining over and over, for millenia.The liklihood that some kind of self-replicators would be produced is not all that incredible to imagine, is it?Talking about the liklihood of any specific organism is, therefore, irrelevant.Now, perhaps you would like to explain why any of this opposition to abiogenesis theory has anything at all to do with the ToE?

Mike,This is a staple creationist strawman. Nobody is suggesting that a fully formed genome sprang into being, but rather evolved from a much simpler self-replicator. Since we don't know what it was, it is impossible to make an argument from improbability.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Mike, if you find Hoyle's argument so compelling, why don't you accept his alternative proposition for the initiation of life on earth - panspermia?

wasnt the formation of DNA a quantum event>?something to do with the numbers all being suprisingly the same...and how can we be sure that there wasnt life before DNA?
perhaps DNA was created in the evolution of lesser life forms and thus was not completely random?of course we can only speculate....but that "God" created DNA i find a little hard to stomach...not just because im an athist....but simply because no-one has hands small enought to play with molecules like that.besides, without a nucleas, transfer, messenger and that other type of RNA Dna is pretty much just a waste of sugar.The Bread Sultan

As far as I know, some fossils have been found that could represent primitive life before DNA or RNA - I'll have to check up on it for exact details if anyone wants them.The current theory suggests that it took a long time for RNA to evolve, but once it did it lead to the development of DNA - and life really took off once it had an organised method of self-replication; it was literally the most successful evolutionary jump in history.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

quote:

---

As far as I know, some fossils have been found that could represent primitive life before DNA or RNA - I'll have to check up on it for exact details if anyone wants them.

---

I'd be interested in seeing that. What was before DNA/RNA, and how could it have fossilized?

I'm pretty darned sure there is no fossilized evidence for any pre DNA life. I'd love to hear about it if there is.

I'll need a while to dig it up - don't hold your breath now...It might just be evidence for pre-DNA life, i.e. RNA organisms. I heard about this a while ago so I could be wrong. I remember that its a case of "maybe it is, maybe it isn't" - fossil preservation of life that old is terrible.I'll post a new topic when I find it.The Rock Hound

There are, though I don't have a reference, extant RNA life forms. Living "fossils" so called I guess.I'll see what I can find on those.

Actually I read that some viruses are RNA lifeforms - they're literally so simple that they don't need DNA to reproduce.By the way I found some stuff on the whole origin of life thing - should I post it here or start another topic?The Rock Hound

Use you're own judgment, but my suggestion would be to see if there's a currently or recently active thread in the Origin of Life forum that might be appropriate. If there isn't one then you could open a new thread in that forum.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator