The Ribonuclease protein is the simplest protein that we know of, and can be considered the most basic building block of a cell. It is made from 124 amino acids, the first one in the strand being Lysine. There are 17 different amino acids in this protein, so to simplify it, lets say that there is a 1/17 chance of Lysine coming first. The second one in line, is Glutamic acid. The odds of it coming second are 1/289. Then comes Threonine. Chances of it coming 3rd are 1/4913. If we continue down the list, the end result is 1 followed by 552 zeroes. To put that in perspective, It's the same as a poker player drawing 19 royal flushes in a row, with out trading in any cards. If this is a million: 1,000,000. And this is a billion: 1,000,000,000. And this is a trillion: 1,000,000,000,000, We still have 546, 543, and 540 zeroes to go, respectively. To conclude, I think the chances of a living cell forming from chemicals that just happened to bond, is ridiculously unlikely.
Wow. This guy was bang on. No wonder you guys got rid of him LOL
I thought it appropriate to reproduce the original post, as I back it up 100%. The evidence for an intelligent origin of proteins is the same as the evidence for the intelligent origin of the nucleotide sequence on the original DNA/RNA. I like when numbers come into this discussion. Tends to make the methodological naturalists start dancing, dog and pony shows, and all sorts of entertaining antics to skirt the quantitative issue and hope nobody notices...
Speaking of which, it's probably just about time for RAZD to make an appearance! (lol just joking)
Wow. This guy was bang on. No wonder you guys got rid of him LOL I thought it appropriate to reproduce the original post, as I back it up 100%. The evidence for an intelligent origin of proteins is the same as the evidence for the intelligent origin of the nucleotide sequence on the original DNA/RNA.
A God-of-the-Gaps fallacy is not evidence.
And the whining "God of the Gaps" is not an argument. It shows that you have been presented with a situation that can best be explained by positing a creator. When Darwinists have no response, they whine "You used God-Of-The-Gaps".
It's a disguised argument from incredulity. It's not my problem if you can't imagine a creator. It's your lack of imagination.
This person never demonstrated that the first life had proteins. Perhaps you should start there.
If you can't accept that the first life required proteins, you better give your brain a re-boot.
Proteins are required to build virtually EVERY structure comprising life. The law of uniformitarianism suggests that we should start with the working assumption that the original life was substantially as it is today, AT LEAST to the extent of requiring proteins.
If you have a different approach, by all means present it.
The issue, however, is that no one claims that life started because "chemicals just happened to bond." There are conditions that force chemicals to bond, due to their very nature. Those conditions force chemicals to bond in very specific ways.
Watson and Crick already debunked your idea, shortly after discovering the structure of DNA. They realized (and publicized) that there is no chemical force that influences the sequence of the 4 bases on the helix. It is completely independent of chemistry.
The code found in the nucleic acid base-pairs is pure information; not chemistry. No chemical forces can have any effect on the sequence of base-pairs, much less properly sequence the base-pairs to provide the instructions to build proteins and all other features of an organism.
Yet, the code is there, and it produced life. If not by chemical forces, how did the code get there?
I submit that the inference to the best explanation is that a designing intelligence was necessary.
Also, as others have pointed out, the calculation that the OP contained, if it calculated anything, shows the odds of the Ribonuclease protein COMING TOGETHER IN ONE FELL SWOOP, all of the constituent parts fusing into one at the same instant. Since that isn't how science BELIEVES chemistry works, the calculation is meaningless.
You mean, that's not how Darwinists believe EVOLUTION works, so they blithely dismiss the possibility without more thought.
It's the FAITH STATEMENT that 'everything came about by some form of evolutionary process' that blinds Darwinists to the possibility of life being created in 'one fell swoop'. However, in view of the evidence, I submit that 'one fell swoop' is an inference to the best explanation for life's origin.
Their results were published in Nature magazine in the 50's. You can probably find it in a large library. Again, this is basic stuff - common knowledge that is disseminated in high school biology class.
The code found in the nucleic acid base-pairs is pure information; not chemistry.
My apologies, I should have said: The code found in the nucleic acid base-pairs is pure information, TRANSMITTED BY MEANS OF CHEMISTRY. I was wrong to suggest that chemistry is not involved. My mistake.