|1 year ago :: Feb 14, 2012 - 7:25AM #1|
You all of course, it is not just Knowsnothing that will be interested in examinity this evidence. Anyone who wished to post pro or con on this subject is welcome.
Because the evidence involves virtually all fields of study and certainly all fields of science, feel free to start your own thread on any specific field of study.
There are two purposes for this thread. One is to post on actual evidence, of course. But another is to actually identify the fields of study involved.
On this thread I will post on only one field of study: chemistry and the origin of life.
But first, I wanted to try to make an exhaustive list of all the fields of study involved.
So this post will be continually edited as more fields of study are added to this outline.
4. Theoretical physics
11. Plate tectonics
12. Earth Science
15. Particle physics
16. Probability and statistics
17. Origin of Life synthesis experiments and scenarios
23. radiometric dating
25. Materials science
26. Genetics and epigenetics
27. Microevolution mechanisms
28. Creationist and Evolutionist models, i.e. the scientific evidence involved
30. Migration [e.g. how black-cap chicatee & Monarch butterfly determine locations they have never seen]
OK, I suspect there are actually over 100 fields of study required for an exhaustive examination of the evidence - i.e. for complete application of Romans 1:20. Feel free to post additional fields of study involved with "examining gthe things made" to determine God's power and qualities.
|1 year ago :: Feb 14, 2012 - 7:59AM #2|
As I said - on this thread I will post on chemistry and the origin of life.
At the outset we need to determine to what extent the laws and properties of our universe are fine tuned for the existence of life, and to what extent direct separate intelligent design and creation were required for the origin of life.
Detail on these properties and laws involve other fields of study on the list - so I will post in depth on them separately.
For now, know that the existence of the chemicals required for life initially required our universe to be fine tuned for the existence of stars, because all chemicals other than Hydrogen, Helium and a little Lithium required stars to produce.
Isaiah 40:26 shows that the existence of stars required plural forms of God's dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim) and power (Hebrew koach). For example, gravity and dark energy are both invisible forms of energy that involved the fine tuning of the expansion rate of our universe such that stars could come to exist.
But that is for another thread. Suffice it to say that elements like Oxygen, Nitrogen and Carbon are required for life, and these would not exist without stars and, for example, supernovae.
Life is not simply a combination of these elements. Life requires informational molecules, not merely statistical molecules. Not only must these molecules contain information, but also there needs to be reader molecules to translate and use this information.
One example is messenger RNA - but here we enter another field of study: micro-biology. Not to mention genetics and epigenetics.
For this thread, there are two basic chemical evolution models most scientists espouse:
1. Protein first models.
2 RNA first models.
For this post I will zero in on protein first models, as these have been the most popular in origin of life synthesis experiments. E.g. Miller's oft quoted and famous origin of life synthesis experiment was assuming a protein first model.
For those of you who are not familiar with these sciences, know that protein first models require amino acids as first steps while RNA first models require necleic acids as first steps - and that the environments required for the synthesis of different nucleic acids is different than the required envirionment for different amino acids - and also that different environments favor different amino acids..
And since this is a forum devoted to discussing Jehovah's Witnesses I will be posting quotes from our literature before delving more deeply into the various points involved.
Here is a brief list of lines of evidence favoring creation (intelligent design) over chance chemical evolution of life:
1. Life requires left hand polarized amino acids only. Chance combinations of amino acids are half left handed and half right handed. An intelligent chemist would be required (i.e. intelligent design) to select only left handed polarized amino acids.
2. Life requires alpha-peptide bonded polypeptides (higher up from amino acids - more complex) for life. More on this later.
3. Earth's primordial waters contained ions of Calcium, Potassium and Sodium - which will not allow the existence of organic molecultes - these ions would either destroy or preciptate out various organic molecules. This requires examining geochemistry evidence - specifically the vast carbonate deposits which require the geologic carbon cycle to produce which required oceans with these dissolved ions plus dissoved CO2
3. Chemical evolution scenarios require a lack of Oxygen - however, Oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust! E.g. carbonates are CO4 - 4 Oxygens for each carbon. Chemical evolution models involve methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3) - note these have zero oxygen atoms! The evidence of the carbonate deposits overwhelmingly proves the early earth atmosphere had an abundance of CO2 - carbon dioxide - not CH4 - i.e. not 4 hydrogens and zero oxygens for each carbon atom, but two Oxygens for each carbon molecule.
4. There is a plethora of evidence for water on the early earth, and less free Oxygen than at present. The problem for chemical evolutionists here is that UV irradiation dissociates water into hydrogen (2 atoms - one molecule) and oxygen (one atom - highly reactive until it becomes the O2 molecule, which is still fairly highly reactive).
Would there have been higher radiation on early earth? Not likely below the water canope, in that model. But certainly there would be no protective ozone layer because this requires oxygen. There had to be a balance between the production of Oxygen by the photolysis of water by solar radiation and the shielding from radiation by the resulting ozone.
This means there was oxygen on early earth - either that or no radiation - yet most chemical evolution models require solar radiation!
to be continued
|1 year ago :: Feb 14, 2012 - 8:11AM #3|
In this post I will quote our literalure. Thus if you respond to this post you will be discussing what Jehovah's Witnesses have published and therefore discussing Jehovah's Witnesses - granted on science.
Mostly I will be posting on the protein first models, but first I will post on the RNA first models so this is not totally ignored:
“the RNA World” or Another World?
In view of the DNA-RNA-protein team impasse, some researchers have offered “the RNA world” theory. What is that? Instead of asserting that DNA, RNA, and proteins originated simultaneously to produce life, they say that RNA by itself was the first spark of life. Is this theory sound?
In the 1980’s, researchers discovered in their laboratory that RNA molecules could act as their own enzymes by snipping themselves in two and splicing themselves back together. So it was speculated that RNA might have been the first self-replicating molecule. It is theorized that in time, these RNA molecules learned to form cell membranes and that finally, the RNA organism gave rise to DNA. “The apostles of the RNA world,” writes Phil Cohen in New Scientist, “believe that their theory should be taken, if not as gospel, then as the nearest thing to truth.”
Not all scientists, though, accept this scenario. Skeptics, observes Cohen, “argued that it was too great a leap from showing that two RNA molecules partook in a bit of self mutilation in a test tube, to claiming that RNA was capable of running a cell single-handed and triggering the emergence of life on Earth.”
There are other problems as well. Biologist Carl Woese holds that “the RNA world theory . . . is fatally flawed because it fails to explain where the energy came from to fuel the production of the first RNA molecules.” And researchers have never located a piece of RNA that can replicate itself from scratch. There is also the issue of where RNA came from in the first place. Though “the RNA world” theory appears in many textbooks, most of it, says researcher Gary Olsen, “is speculative optimism.”
Another theory that some scientists have espoused is that our planet was seeded with life that came from outer space. But this theory does not really address the question, What originated life? Saying that life comes from outer space, notes science writer Boyce Rensberger, “merely changes the location of the mystery.” It does not explain the origin of life. It merely sidesteps the issue by relocating the origin to another solar system or galaxy. The real issue remains." -
Is There a Creator Who Cares About You? , p. 48.
|1 year ago :: Feb 14, 2012 - 8:25AM #4|
Still on the RNA model, see this link for some details:
Ultraviolet light can cause RNA to polymerize while at the same time breaking down other types of organic molecules that could have the potential of causing the breakdown of RNA, suggesting that RNA may have been a relatively common substance on early Earth.This aspect of the theory is still untested and is based on a constant concentration of sugar-phosphate molecules.
Since there were no known chemical pathways for the abiogenic synthesis of nucleotides from pyrimidine nucleobases cytosine and uracil under prebiotic conditions, it is thought by some that nucleic acids did not contain these nucleobases seen in life's nucleic acids. The nucleoside cytosine has a half-life in isolation of 19 days at 100 °C (212 °F) and 17,000 years in freezing water, which has been argued to be too short on the geologic time scale for accumulation. Others have questioned whether ribose and other backbone sugars could be stable enough to be found in the original genetic material, and have raised the issue that ribose must all be the same enantiomer as any nucleotide of the wrong chirality acts as a chain terminator.
Notice that cytosine requires a cold environment. Also not the need for correct chirality (I post on this above - the need for selection of exclusive left hand polarized amino acids for life - that is chirality by definition.).
Obviously nucleic acids must contain the proper nucleobases to be useful to life.
On the need for a cold environment for cytosine, this is an overall problem for chemical evolution and a strong argument for intelligent creation. But that is for my next post (last for now, btw).
|1 year ago :: Feb 14, 2012 - 8:50AM #5|
Last post for now - later I will look for input from knowsnothing and others.
The need for a cold environment for cytosine accumulation is just one of many examples of the need for different environments for different molecules required for the origin of life.
Back to the amino acid models - but this obviously applies to RNA first models also:
Besides the fact that most amino acids synthesized by chance in the various origin of life experiments are not useful to life (only 20 left hand polarized amino acids are useful for life), and besides the fact that chance synthesis of amino acids are 50% right handed and 50% left handed polarized - there is this very important observation.
Different amino acids require different environments for production of significant chemical reaction product proportions.
Some prefer wet, others dry, still others super dry (requiring condensing agents), others prefer cold, others prefer hot, others prefer acid, others prefer alkaline.
Obvioulsy for life to be created, all the required molecules must be in the same place at the same time.
However, one simply cannot have wet, dry, hot, cold, acid and alkaline in the same place at the same time - it is utterly impossible!
The only way, therefore, for life to have been created is if a chemist (as in God) selected the proper chirality (100% left handed) for each of 20 amino acids from separate concentrating ponds or flasks (etc.) and brought these together - not in simply statistical combination but in informational combination with both informational and translator molecules!
This is simply impossible by chance - in fact informational molecules cannot be formed without input of information! It is so difficult that even modern day scientists (chemists, etc.) cannot produce life by design - and humans are indeed intelligent designers!
Genetic engineering, btw, is so important because chemists are using already existing complex informational molecules - not simply their statistical counterparts which contain no information whatsoever!
And in closing - the origin of life is opposite to death. One must understand the difference between a dead cell and a living cell - as both are nearly identical.
The difference, which is of paramount importance, involves entropy (the second law of thermodynamics, but applied to more than hot vs. cold) - the return to the statistically most probable configuration of complex organic molecules from the informational molecules required for functions required for life.
In short, death is the loss of information in informational molecules as they decay by entropy to statistical molecules containing less and less information until a point is reached where the functions of life are not longer possible.
The chance formation of a cell with statistical molecules would be a totally dead cell! Of course, it is also impossible to produce such a dead cell by chance from organic molecules that could have existed on early earth, or anywhere else in our universe.
This fact is powerfully proven by the fact that a dead cell never becomes a living cell - entropy is one way!
Life requires informational compensation for entropy such that entropy is overcome in favor of life!
I.e. it all boils down to the difference between life and death!
|1 year ago :: Feb 14, 2012 - 9:15AM #6|
OK, now try to prove to the fans that all humankind originated with Adam 'n' Eve ca 6000 years ago, and that everyone on the planet save 8 were killed by drowning 4000 years ago.
|1 year ago :: Feb 14, 2012 - 12:50PM #7|
|1 year ago :: Feb 14, 2012 - 2:22PM #8|
|1 year ago :: Feb 14, 2012 - 2:23PM #9|
Would jehovah approve of stem cell research?
|1 year ago :: Feb 14, 2012 - 2:57PM #10|