The irreducible, code-instructed process to make cell factories and machines points to intelligent design

[size=24]The irreducible, code-instructed process to make cell factories and machines points to intelligent design
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2364-the-irreducible-and-information-rich-process-and-pathway-to-make-molecular-machines-in-the-cell-points-to-intelligent-design
]
Evolution has been a central point of the origins debate. Abiogenesis however provides far better elucidation of what mechanisms explain the origin of biological systems better: A intelligent designer, through power, information input, wisdom, will, or natural, non-guided, non-intelligent mechanisms, that is : random chance or physical necessity, long periods of time, mutation and natural selection, or self organisation of matter.
Behes definition of Irreducible complexity can be expanded, and applied not only to biological systems, but also to systems , machines and factories created by man, that require a minimal number of parts to exercise a specific function, and this minimal number of parts cannot be reduced to keep the basic function. The term applies as well to processes, production methods and proceedings of various sorts. To reach a certain goal, a minimal number of manufacturing steps must be gone through. That applies in special to processes in living cells, where a minimal set of basic processes must be fully functional and operational, in order to maintain cells alive.
Following irreducible processes and parts are required to keep cells alive, and illustrate mount improbable to get life a first go:
Reproduction. Reproduction is essential for the survival of all living things.
Metabolism. Enzymatic activity allows a cell to respond to changing environmental demands and regulate its metabolic pathways, both of which are essential to cell survival.
Nutrition. This is closely related to metabolism. Seal up a living organism in a box for long enough and in due course it will cease to function and eventually die. Nutrients are essential for life.
Complexity. All known forms of life are amazingly complex. Even single-celled organisms such as bacteria are veritable beehives of activity involving millions of components.
Organization. Maybe it is not complexity per se that is significant, but organized complexity.
Growth and development. Individual organisms grow and ecosystems tend to spread (if conditions are right).
Information content. In recent years scientists have stressed the analogy between living organisms and computers. Crucially, the information needed to replicate an organism is passed on in the genes from parent to offspring.
Hardware/software entanglement. All life of the sort found on Earth stems from a deal struck between two very different classes of molecules: nucleic acids and proteins.
Permanence and change. A further paradox of life concerns the strange conjunction of permanence and change.
Sensitivity. All organisms respond to stimuli— though not always to the same stimuli in the same ways.
Regulation. All organisms have regulatory mechanisms that coordinate internal processes.
[size=12]chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University Nijmegen
[size=12]A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. “A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity,”
[size=16]Following is the description of parts and processes in a theoretical protocell, which are essential and irreducible:
What Might Be a Protocell’s minimal requirement of parts ?]
[size=12]The Cell membrane[size=12] separates the interior of all cells from the outside environment. [size=12]Thats the exterior factory wall that protects the factory.
[size=12]The Nucleus ( only in eukaryotic cells )[size=12] is the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). [size=12]It controls all cell activity; determines what proteins will be made and controls all cell activity.
[size=13]DNA repair mechanisms [size=12] Proofreading enzymes’ to prevent the occurrence of slight changes in sequence when [size=12]DNA[size=12] replicates.
[size=12]Plasma membrane gates[size=12] Control of Input Flow, Functions of Material Identification and Material Extraction. Regulate what enters and leaves the cell; where cells makes contact with the external environment. [size=12]That’s the Shipping/Receiving Department. It functions also as the communications department because it is where the cell contacts the external environment.
[size=12]The Cytoplasm[size=12] includes everything between the cell membrane and the nucleus. It contains various kinds of cell structures and is the site of most cell activity.[size=12] The cytoplasm is similar to the factory floor where most of the products are assembled, finished, and shipped.
[size=12]Mitochondria/chloroplasts[size=12]: Function of Energy Generation /The power plant. [size=12]Transforms one form of energy into another
[size=12]Mitochondrial membranes [size=12]keep protein assembly lines together for efficient energy production.
[size=12]Membrane-enclosed vesicles[size=12] form packages for cargo so that they may quickly and efficiently reach their destinations.
[size=12]Internal membranes[size=12] divide the cell into specialized compartments, each carrying out a specific function inside the cell. [size=12]That are the compartments in a manufacturing facility.
[size=12]The Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER)[size=12] is the compartment where the Assembly lines reside. (where workers do their work)
[size=12]The Golgi apparatus:[size=12] What happens to all the products that are built on the assembly line of a factory? T[size=12]he final touches are put on them in the finishing and packing department. Workers in this part of the plant are responsible for making minor adjustments to the finished products.
[size=12]Ribosomes [size=12]build the proteins , [size=12]equal to the Workers in the assembly line.
[size=12]Signal-Recognition Particles (SRP) [size=12]and signal receptors provide variety of instructions informing the cell as to what destination and pathway the protein must follow.[size=12] Thats the address on the parcel where it has to be delivered.
[size=12]Kinesin Motors:[size=12] Are the cargo carriers in the cell. [size=12]That are the forklift carriers in a factory.
[size=12]Microtubules:[size=12] They provide platforms for intracellular transport , amongst other things. [size=12]That are the internal factory highways.
[size=12]Lysosomes:[size=12] are capable of breaking down virtually all kinds of biomolecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, and cellular debris.[size=12] Thats the maintainance crew. It gets rid of the trash, and to dismantle and dispose of the outmoded machinery.
[size=12]A complete transcriptional machinery. [size=12] including the three subunits of the RNA polymerase, a factor, an RNA helicase, and four transcriptional factors (with elongation, antitermination, and transcription-translation coupling functions)
[size=12]Protein-processing, -folding, secretion, and degradation functions. [size=12]GroEL/S and DnaK/DnaJ/GrpE, the signal recognition particle, its receptor, the three essential components of the translocase channel, and a signal peptidase, one endopeptidase, and two proteases.
[size=12]FtsZ , essential for [size=12]Cell division
[size=12]Cation, ABC transporters, a PTS for glucose transport, phosphate transporters. S[size=12]ubstrate transport machinery
[size=12]Glycolytic substrate-level phosphorylation. Required for [size=12]ATP synthesis
[size=12]Ribulose-phosphate epimerase, Ribosephosphate isomerase, and Transketolase, allowing the synthesis of pentoses (PRPP) from trioses or hexoses.
[size=12]Dihydroxyacetone phosphate required for [size=12]Lipid biosynthesis through phosphatidylethanolamine
[size=12]This should make it evident that a theoretical natural, non-intelligence requiring transition from a supposed RNA World to a DNA world, to a fully working living cell, even the most simple , is unlikely to the extreme. It reinforces [size=12]what Urey and many other scientists, origin of life researchers said : Abiogenesis is impossible.
[size=12]Harold Urey, a founder of origin-of-life research, describes evolution as a faith which seems to defy logic:
[size=12]“All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.
[size=12]Paul Davies, the fifth miracle, page 54:]
Life as we know it requires hundreds of thousands of specialist proteins, not to mention the nucleic acids. The odds against producing just the proteins by pure chance are something like 1O^40000 to 1. There are indeed a lot of stars—at least ten billion billion in the observable universe. But this number, gigantic as it may appear to us, is nevertheless trivially small compared with the gigantic odds against the random assembly of even a single protein molecule. Though the universe is big, if life formed solely by random agitation in a molecular junkyard, there is scant chance it has happened twice.

[size=12]1. High instructional coded complex information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of intervention of a (past) intelligent powerful agent.
[size=12]2. Cells require high genetic and epigenetic information content (or specified complexity) and utilize systems and subsystems that cannot be reduced.
[size=12]3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
[size=12]4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.

You’re a hoot. So kids with cancer, no fault of their own. Some creator. Kids suffering horribly at the hands of Christian Nazis (yes, Nazis, especially their leader were Christians). Some creator. Some intelligent designer huh. If that’s all you got buddy you got nothing. You have a creator I’d rather not pledge allegiance to.
And if you respond, She allowed evil so that we could learn and overcome, etc. I still say bull. If She was so incredible She could have just arranged things so that we had this moral knowledge right off the bat without all the suffering.

Adonai888:
This should make it evident that a theoretical natural, non-intelligence requiring transition from a supposed RNA World to a DNA world, to a fully working living cell, even the most simple , is unlikely to the extreme. It reinforces what Urey and many other scientists, origin of life researchers said : Abiogenesis is impossible.
But a sky daddy is likely! Great thinking. Are you always this gullible?

Pressed to explain what he meant by having "faith" in an event for which he had no substantial evidence, Dr. Urey said his faith was not in the event itself so much as in the physical laws and reasoning that pointed to its likelihood. He would abandon his faith if it ever proved to be misplaced. But that is a prospect he said he considered to be very unlikely.
Quote #58 of the quote mining project is Harold Urey You probably won't click here, so above is part of what it says. ] It also tells what the question was when answered with the above quote. So, now you know how to look stuff up. Try it, it's fun.
[size=24]The irreducible, code-instructed process to make cell factories and machines points to intelligent design
Give us a break you silly character! Nothing you have up there can survive a serious examination. You live in hermetically seal echo-chamber of like minded - you can be happy in that world, but you will never learn about the Earth or how life came about on this fantastic planet without looking beyond your moot.
January 6, 2016 {1} Our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/earths-heat-moisture-engine.html January 9, 2016 {2} Co-evolution of Minerals and Life | Dr Robert Hazen http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/2-coevolution-of-minerals-and-life.html January 14, 2016 {3} Evolution of Carbon and our biosphere - Professor Hazen focuses on the element Carbon http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/3-evolution-carbon-biosphere-hazen.html January 23, 2016 {4} Evolution-Considering Deep Time and a Couple Big Breaks http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/01/4-evolution-deeptime-moon-geomagnetic.html February 6, 2016 {5a} The Most Beautiful Graph on Earth - A. Hessler http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/most-beautiful-graph-on-earth.html February 7, 2016 {5b} Earth's Earliest Climate - By Angela Hessler http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/earths-earliest-climate-by-hessler.html February 14, 2016 {6} Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere - easy version http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/6-evolution-earths-atmosphere-easy.html February 18, 2016 {7} Our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine, visualized http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/7-global-heat-moisture-distribution.html February 19, 2016 {8} Atmospheric Insulation Explained - appreciating our climate engine http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/8-atmospheric-insulation-explained.html

Okay, that’s old stuff, sorry.
Here, let me help you find some information on specifically RNA evolution and current scientific understanding -
here you can learn a few things you won’t find out about within your echo-chamber.

Title: "The Origins of Life: From Geochemistry to Biochemistry" Speaker: Nita Sahai, PhD Date: October 7, 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeVk9yC0_vk
RNA World Part 1 The Origin of Cellular Life Szostak, Harvard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-OAgWQs1b4
New Study Brings Scientists Closer to the Origin of RNA December 24, 2013 by John Toon http://phys.org/news/2013-12-scientists-closer-rna.html Chemists at the Georgia Institute of Technology have shown how molecules that may have been present on early Earth can self-assemble into structures that could represent a starting point of RNA. The spontaneous formation of RNA building blocks is seen as a crucial step in the origin of life, but one that scientists have struggled with for decades. "In our study, we demonstrate a reaction that we see as important for the formation of the earliest RNA-like molecules," said Nicholas Hud, professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Georgia Tech, where he's also the director of the Center for Chemical Evolution. The study was published Dec. 14 online in the Journal of the American Chemical Society. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-scientists-closer-rna.html#jCp
RNA Self-assembly: Cooperation at the Origins of Life | Niles Lehman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrpADqF3VBo
2011 - Sidney Altman, Sterling Professor of Molecular Cellular and Developmental Biology at Yale University and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (1989), delivers the Tetelman Fellowship Lecture on the origin of life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icrfQyJFYQ8
Entering the RNA World with Sidney Altman Uploaded on Jan 10, 2011 Nobel Laureate Sidney Altman, Professor of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology at Yale University, gives a general description of the problem of the origin of life on Earth with some detail about what we know now and our knowledge of RNase P, an enzyme with a catalytic RNA subunit. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Council Lectures" [12/2010] [Science] [Show ID: 20223] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhQcK4PsStk
Adonai888: This should make it evident that a theoretical natural, non-intelligence requiring transition from a supposed RNA World to a DNA world, to a fully working living cell, even the most simple , is unlikely to the extreme. It reinforces what Urey and many other scientists, origin of life researchers said : Abiogenesis is impossible. But a sky daddy is likely! Great thinking. Are you always this gullible?
In the design revolution, Dembski writes on page 220: So see that the argument from ignorance objection is not a magic wand for silencing intelligent design, lets begin with reality check. When the argument from ignorance objection is raised against intelligent design, who exactly is being accused of being ignorant ? Its natural to think that the ignorance here is on the part of design theorists, who want to attribute intelligent agency to biological systems. If only those poor design theorists understood biology better, those systems would readily submit to mechanistic explanation. Matter of fact imho is, that despite of decades of research, the scientific community has been desperately and unsuccessfully tried to discover how such systems could have formed, what mechanism exactly was in charge. Who is ignorant here ? The Scientific community as a whole. In fact, its safe to say that the biological community is clueless about the emergence of biological complexity. How so? Because the material mechanisms to which the biological community looks to explain biological complexity provide no clue for how those systems might realistically have come about. the problem, therefore, is not ignorance or personal incredulity , but global disciplinary failure , and gross theoretical inadequacy of Darwins theory. James Shapiro , molecular biologist at the university of Chicago, conceded that system that exhibit specified complexity are likely to be designed. Design theorists, in atributing design to systems that exhibit specified complexity (SC), are simply doing what scentists do generally, which is attempt to formulate a causally adequate explanation for the phenomenon in question. To attribute specified complexity, and thereby design, to a biological system is to engage in an eliminative induction, a form of reasoning, used throughout the sciences. Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false. ( Contrast this with Popperian falsification, where propositions are corroborated to the degree that they successfully withstand attempts to falsify them ) Provided the proposition, together with its competitors, form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive class, eliminating all the competitors entails that the proposition is true. As Sherlock Holmes famous dictum says : when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improable, must be the truth. This is the ideal case, in which elininative inductions in fact become deductions. The problem is that in practice we don't have a neat ordering of competitors that can then all be knocked down with a few straigthforward and judicious blows.
Okay, that's old stuff, sorry. Here, let me help you find some information on specifically RNA evolution and current scientific understanding - here you can learn a few things you won't find out about within your echo-chamber.
Title: "The Origins of Life: From Geochemistry to Biochemistry" Speaker: Nita Sahai, PhD Date: October 7, 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeVk9yC0_vk
RNA World Part 1 The Origin of Cellular Life Szostak, Harvard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-OAgWQs1b4
New Study Brings Scientists Closer to the Origin of RNA December 24, 2013 by John Toon http://phys.org/news/2013-12-scientists-closer-rna.html Chemists at the Georgia Institute of Technology have shown how molecules that may have been present on early Earth can self-assemble into structures that could represent a starting point of RNA. The spontaneous formation of RNA building blocks is seen as a crucial step in the origin of life, but one that scientists have struggled with for decades. "In our study, we demonstrate a reaction that we see as important for the formation of the earliest RNA-like molecules," said Nicholas Hud, professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Georgia Tech, where he's also the director of the Center for Chemical Evolution. The study was published Dec. 14 online in the Journal of the American Chemical Society. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-scientists-closer-rna.html#jCp
RNA Self-assembly: Cooperation at the Origins of Life | Niles Lehman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrpADqF3VBo
2011 - Sidney Altman, Sterling Professor of Molecular Cellular and Developmental Biology at Yale University and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (1989), delivers the Tetelman Fellowship Lecture on the origin of life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icrfQyJFYQ8
Entering the RNA World with Sidney Altman Uploaded on Jan 10, 2011 Nobel Laureate Sidney Altman, Professor of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology at Yale University, gives a general description of the problem of the origin of life on Earth with some detail about what we know now and our knowledge of RNase P, an enzyme with a catalytic RNA subunit. Series: "UC Berkeley Graduate Council Lectures" [12/2010] [Science] [Show ID: 20223] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhQcK4PsStk
No evidence that RNA molecules ever had the broad range of catalytic activities http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2243-no-evidence-that-rna-molecules-ever-had-the-broad-range-of-catalytic-activities Paul Davies The Algorithmic Origins of Life Despite the conceptual elegance of the RNA world, the hypothesis faces problems, primarily due to the immense challenge of synthesizing RNA nucleotides under plausible prebiotic conditions and the susceptibility of RNA oligomers to degradation via hydrolysis 21 Due to the organizational structure of systems capable of processing algorithmic (instructional) information, it is not at all clear that a monomolecular system – where a single polymer plays the role of catalyst and informational carrier – is even logically consistent with the organization of information flow in living systems, because there is no possibility of separating information storage from information processing (that being such a distinctive feature of modern life). As such, digital–first systems (as currently posed) represent a rather trivial form of information processing that fails to capture the logical structure of life as we know it. We need to explain the origin of both the hardware and software aspects of life, or the job is only half finished. Explaining the chemical substrate of life and claiming it as a solution to life’s origin is like pointing to silicon and copper as an explanation for the goings-on inside a computer. It is this transition where one should expect to see a chemical system literally take-on “a life of its own", characterized by informational dynamics which become decoupled from the dictates of local chemistry alone (while of course remaining fully consistent with those dictates). Thus the famed chicken-or-egg problem (a solely hardware issue) is not the true sticking point. Rather, the puzzle lies with something fundamentally different, a problem of causal organization having to do with the separation of informational and mechanical aspects into parallel causal narratives. The real challenge of life’s origin is thus to explain how instructional information control systems emerge naturally and spontaneously from mere molecular dynamics. The hardware and software of the cell, evidence of design http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2221-the-hardware-and-software-of-the-cell-evidence-of-design Paul Davies: the fifth miracle page 62 Due to the organizational structure of systems capable of processing algorithmic (instructional) information, it is not at all clear that a monomolecular system – where a single polymer plays the role of catalyst and informational carrier – is even logically consistent with the organization of information flow in living systems, because there is no possibility of separating information storage from information processing (that being such a distinctive feature of modern life). As such, digital–first systems (as currently posed) represent a rather trivial form of information processing that fails to capture the logical structure of life as we know it. 1 We need to explain the origin of both the hardware and software aspects of life, or the job is only half finished. Explaining the chemical substrate of life and claiming it as a solution to life’s origin is like pointing to silicon and copper as an explanation for the goings-on inside a computer. It is this transition where one should expect to see a chemical system literally take-on “a life of its own", characterized by informational dynamics which become decoupled from the dictates of local chemistry alone (while of course remaining fully consistent with those dictates). Thus the famed chicken-or-egg problem (a solely hardware issue) is not the true sticking point. Rather, the puzzle lies with something fundamentally different, a problem of causal organization having to do with the separation of informational and mechanical aspects into parallel causal narratives. The real challenge of life’s origin is thus to explain how instructional information control systems emerge naturally and spontaneously from mere molecular dynamics.
Adonai888: This should make it evident that a theoretical natural, non-intelligence requiring transition from a supposed RNA World to a DNA world, to a fully working living cell, even the most simple , is unlikely to the extreme. It reinforces what Urey and many other scientists, origin of life researchers said : Abiogenesis is impossible. But a sky daddy is likely! Great thinking. Are you always this gullible?
In the design revolution, Dembski writes on page 220: So see that the argument from ignorance objection is not a magic wand for silencing intelligent design, lets begin with reality check. When the argument from ignorance objection is raised against intelligent design, who exactly is being accused of being ignorant ? Its natural to think that the ignorance here is on the part of design theorists, who want to attribute intelligent agency to biological systems. If only those poor design theorists understood biology better, those systems would readily submit to mechanistic explanation. Matter of fact imho is, that despite of decades of research, the scientific community has been desperately and unsuccessfully tried to discover how such systems could have formed, what mechanism exactly was in charge. Who is ignorant here ? It isn't the scientific community who's ignorant and they haven't been "desperately trying to discover how such systems could have been formed." They are seeking answers using the scientific method. If anyone is desperate it's the design theorists, which have yet to come up with a scintilla of objective evidence to support any design theory. The Scientific community as a whole. In fact, its safe to say that the biological community is clueless about the emergence of biological complexity. How so? Because the material mechanisms to which the biological community looks to explain biological complexity provide no clue for how those systems might realistically have come about. But the design theorists have. Is that what you're saying? Apparently they have the answer but they're keeping it a secret. Somebody doesn't have a clue and it isn't the "biological community." The design theorists wouldn't know objective evidence if it hit them in the face. They obviously don't have a clue about biology, either. the problem, therefore, is not ignorance or personal incredulity , but global disciplinary failure , and gross theoretical inadequacy of Darwins theory. But the design theorists do know, right? They have an adequate extension to Darwin's theory? Why are they not presenting their superior knowledge to the world? Surely there are scientists somewhere in the world who would listen to them. James Shapiro , molecular biologist at the university of Chicago, conceded that system that exhibit specified complexity are likely to be designed. And he has objective evidence of this, but just doesn't want to write a scientific paper on it? Design theorists, in atributing design to systems that exhibit specified complexity (SC), are simply doing what scentists do generally, which is attempt to formulate a causally adequate explanation for the phenomenon in question. To attribute specified complexity, and thereby design, to a biological system is to engage in an eliminative induction, a form of reasoning, used throughout the sciences. Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false. They don't have to argue for anything. All they have to do is present a scientific paper to the scientific community with objectove evidence to back up their theory and have it peer reviewed. What are they waiting for? An engraved invitation? ( Contrast this with Popperian falsification, where propositions are corroborated to the degree that they successfully withstand attempts to falsify them ) Provided the proposition, together with its competitors, form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive class, eliminating all the competitors entails that the proposition is true. As Sherlock Holmes famous dictum says : when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improable, must be the truth. This is the ideal case, in which elininative inductions in fact become deductions. The problem is that in practice we don't have a neat ordering of competitors that can then all be knocked down with a few straigthforward and judicious blows. Ah, of course! it's a scientific conspiracy! Let's see the design theorists' "straightforward and juducious blows'. Where are they? Hiding in the bushes? If they have the answer, why are they hiding it? All they need to do is present a scientific, peer reviewed paper. Not one blow, judicious or otherwise, would be necessary--and we can all be sure not one is forthcoming from the design theorists. They obviously can't even get a scientific paper together.
when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improable, must be the truth. This is the ideal case, in which elininative inductions in fact become deductions. The problem is that in practice we don’t have a neat ordering of competitors that can then all be knocked down with a few straigthforward and judicious blows.
That's really sophisticated, and to someone who has given it no additional thought, sounds really smart. But it relies on something being impossible, and it being eliminated. Darwin's work has been added to, confirmed and expanded. A few parts have been shown to be unworkable, but they aren't parts that bring down the whole theory. As for figuring out how life began, something Darwin left for others, we keep getting closer, we develop new theories and new experiments. You have failed again Adonai

Why do you guys engage types like adonai88? All the argument in the world won’t have the slightest effect on his type. What you DO do is give him the ability to think he’s engaging in rational dialogue and therefore is acting differently than his co-religionists who merely rely on faith-talk. It’s like when a fundie says “scientists say XYZ”, thinking using a reference to science legitimizes their viewpoint, even though they don’t believe in science!

A few parts have been shown to be unworkable, but they aren't parts that bring down the whole theory
The main claim, namely common ancestry, and that all body forms are the result of evolutionary accidents, namely mutations, and afterwards natural selection, HAS BEEN FALSIFIED. GET OVER IT. FINITO. END OF STORY. ITS FINISHED. DARWIN KAPUTT. Where Do Complex Organisms Come From? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from
No evidence that RNA molecules ever had the broad range of catalytic activities
How would you know? Besides that "broad range of catalytic activities" was also the product of evolution. In the beginning, it was rather simpler. You're too busy proving to yourself that it's impossible - there's no way you can be aware of the full scope of evidence that's out there. Or you wouldn't be dependent on constantly reaching into that hermetically sealed echo-chamber, Reasons and "science" the heavenly forum. Believe what you will, but the bottomline is that wearing blinders disqualifies you from being a judge, you silly goose.
A few parts have been shown to be unworkable, but they aren't parts that bring down the whole theory
The main claim, namely common ancestry, and that all body forms are the result of evolutionary accidents, namely mutations, and afterwards natural selection, HAS BEEN FALSIFIED. GET OVER IT. FINITO. END OF STORY. ITS FINISHED. DARWIN KAPUTT. Where Do Complex Organisms Come From? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from The idea that they come from a god that's never been observed is a lot more outlandish than that they came about spontaneously. Lois
Why do you guys engage types like adonai88? It's fun to see them squirm. All the argument in the world won't have the slightest effect on his type. What you DO do is give him the ability to think he's engaging in rational dialogue and therefore is acting differently than his co-religionists who merely rely on faith-talk. It's like when a fundie says "scientists say XYZ", thinking using a reference to science legitimizes their viewpoint, even though they don't believe in science!
Why do you guys engage types like adonai88? All the argument in the world won't have the slightest effect on his type. What you DO do is give him the ability to think he's engaging in rational dialogue and therefore is acting differently than his co-religionists who merely rely on faith-talk. It's like when a fundie says "scientists say XYZ", thinking using a reference to science legitimizes their viewpoint, even though they don't believe in science!
The argument that no argument will have an effect on someone is a non-starter. You or I may never see the effect of our argument because Adonai will want to save face. But there are plenty of people who can tell you they used to think one way, now they think another, and an argument made the difference.
A few parts have been shown to be unworkable, but they aren't parts that bring down the whole theory
The main claim, namely common ancestry, and that all body forms are the result of evolutionary accidents, namely mutations, and afterwards natural selection, HAS BEEN FALSIFIED. GET OVER IT. FINITO. END OF STORY. ITS FINISHED. DARWIN KAPUTT. Where Do Complex Organisms Come From? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from Now you're just "yelling". That's a good sign you are losing the logical argument. I got to "micro" vs "macro" and stopped. There is just evolution. The mechanisms of what you call "microevolution" as the same as the "macro". "Macro" doesn't mean that suddenly there is a bigger evolutionary leap. Evolution is a slow process of tiny changes, eventually resulting in larger changes.

micro x passage of time = macro
It’s that accumulating interest thing in action again.

micro x passage of time = macro It's that accumulating interest thing in action again.
Where Do Complex Organisms Come From? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2316-where-do-complex-organisms-come-from Principal Meanings of Evolution in Biology Textbooks 1 What is fact : 1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature 2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population 3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor. 4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations What is not fact: 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor. 6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms. Macroevolution. Fact, or fantasy ? 2 Micro evolution and secondary speciation is a fact. The macrochange however from one organism into another in long periods of time, the change of body plans and evolutionary novelties is not a fact, not even a theory, or even a hypothesis. Its just fantasy without a shred of evidence. Its not possible. Show me some examples of observed facts; please provide and give me empirical data of a unorganized undirected unguided Neo-Darwinian accidental random macro-evolutionary event of a change/transition, where one "kind" can evolve into another beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) , like a organism randomly changing/transition into a whole entire different, new fully functioning biological features in an organism, the emergence of new complex functions, a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy, with the arise of new body plans, What is an evolutionary novelty? A list of most-often cited examples include the shell of turtles (Cebra-Thomas et al. 2005), flight (Prum 2005), flowers (Albert, Oppenheimer, and Lindqvist 2002), the ability of great tits to open bottles of milk (Kothbauerhellmann 1990), the transition from the jaw to the ear of some bones during the evolution of mammals from reptiles (Brazeau and Ahlberg 2006), eyes (Fernald 2006), hearts (Olson 2006), bipedalism (Richmond and Strait 2000), and the origin of Hox genes (Wagner, Amemiya, and Ruddle 2003); Ernst Mayr, a major figure of the MS, defined novelties as “any newly acquired structure or property that permits the performance of a new function, which, in turn, will open a new adaptive zone" (Mayr 1963, 602)something that we merely don't have to just put blind faith in? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15612191 In the last 25 years, criticism of most theories advanced by Darwin and the neo-Darwinians has increased considerably, and so did their defense. Darwinism has become an ideology, while the most significant theories of Darwin were proven unsupportable. Lynn Margulis Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement... Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation. The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another….No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change - led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. biology is opening the black box, and demonstrating how organisms develop. We are slowly getting out of a state of ignorance in regard of what mechanisms determines cell shape, assignment of their planes of division, tendencies to move, directions and rates of movement, modes of differentiation into particular cell types, and cell death (apoptosis). The process of morphogenesis, which can be defined as an evolution of the form of an organism, is one of the most intriguing mysteries in the life sciences. The discovery and description of the spatial– temporal distribution of the gene expression pattern during morphogenesis, together with its key regulators, is one of the main recent achievements in developmental biology. Nevertheless, gene expression patterns cannot explain the development of the precise geometry of an organism and its parts in space. 1 Stephen C Meyer , Darwin's doubt pg.218: Contemporary critics of neo-Darwinism acknowledge, of course, that preexisting forms of life can diversify under the twin influences of natural selection and genetic mutation. Known microevolutionary processes can account for small changes in the coloring of peppered moths, the acquisition of antibiotic resistance in different strains of bacteria, and cyclical variations in the size of Galápagos finch beaks. Nevertheless, many biologists now argue that neo-Darwinian theory does not provide an adequate explanation for the origin of new body plans or events such as the Cambrian explosion. For example, evolutionary biologist Keith Stewart Thomson, formerly of Yale University, has expressed doubt that large-scale morphological changes could accumulate by minor changes at the genetic level. Geneticist George Miklos, of the Australian National University, has argued that neo- Darwinism fails to provide a mechanism that can produce large-scale innovations in form and structure. Biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff have attempted to develop a new theory of evolution to supplement classical neo-Darwinism, which, they argue, cannot adequately explain large-scale macroevolutionary change. As they note: Starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its neo-Darwinism's adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species—Darwin's problem—remains unsolved." pg. 204 Genes alone do not determine the three-dimensional form and structure of an animal. so-called epigenetic information—information stored in cell structures, but not in DNA sequences—plays a crucial role. The Greek prefix epi means "above" or "beyond," so epigenetics refers to a source of information that lies beyond the genes. "Detailed information at the level of the gene does not serve to explain form." "epigenetic" or "contextual information" plays a crucial role in the formation of animal "body assemblies" during embryological development. Recent discoveries about the role of epigenetic information in animal development pose a formidable challenge to the standard neo-Darwinian account of the origin of these body plans—perhaps the most formidable of all. "the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution," it has "no theory of the generative." neo-Darwinism "completely avoids the question of the origination of phenotypic traits and of organismal form." Cell and body shape, and organism development depends on following : Membrane targets and patterns Cytoskeletal arrays Centrosomes Ion channels, and Sugar molecules on the exterior of cells (the sugar code) Gene regulatory networks Various codes and the encoded epigenetic information is required: The Genetic Code The Splicing Codes The Metabolic Code The Signal Transduction Codes The Signal Integration Codes The Histone Code The Tubulin Code The Sugar Code The Glycomic Code " Junk DNA " MicroRNAs--"Once Dismissed as Junk"--Confirmed To Have Important Gene Regulatory Function In 2008 Scientific American noted that microRNAs were "once dismissed as junk" and said the following: Tiny snippets of the genome known as microRNA were long thought to be genomic refuse because they were transcribed from so-called "junk DNA," sections of the genome that do not carry information for making proteins responsible for various cellular functions. Evidence has been building since 1993, however, that microRNA is anything but genetic bric-a-brac. Quite the contrary, scientists say that it actually plays a crucial role in switching protein-coding genes on or off and regulating the amount of protein those genes produce. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hidden-treasures-in-junk-dna/

Well, if you’re going to keep this up, I’ll read a couple more sentences of your non-science. I stopped here:

like a organism randomly changing/transition into a whole entire different, new fully functioning biological features in an organism, the emergence of new complex functions, a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy, with the arise of new body plans
I can't show you that. That's exactly what I said macro-evolution is not. Click here for an explanation of what it is.]