Why I believe God Created Life.

[work in progress]

I wasn't aware of this thread before; but from what I've read, it's another god-in-the-gaps argument - since the pathway to the origins of life is still unknown, it's a gap in knowledge where the supernatural can be inserted.

But, over time, many previous gaps...like the so called irreducible complexities: the human eye, the blood-clotting cascade, and the little flagella motors that move many one celled bacteria, are mysteries that have been cleared up, or have many of the steps filled in, making them less fertile ground for supernatural arguments.

The Earth is estimated to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. There is evidence in the Western Australian desert of archaea (primitive bacteria) that lived 3.5 billion years ago. The implications are that life began on Earth very soon after meteor bombardments stopped and the surface was able to cool. And this is billions of years before the great diversity of life known as the Cambrian Explosion.

So, the picture of life on Earth is that simple one-celled life is easy to make, while the hard part is getting conditions right to support complex multicellular life forms. A recent lab study on possible abiogenesis pathways that I noticed on the Science + Religion blog, is leading to a conclusion that the road to the first life forms was likely not as "irreducibly complex" as many assume today, because it is apparently possible to create metabolic networks in the absence of RNA. Up till now, this has been a chicken and egg problem: how do you make the first self-replicating RNA molecules without metabolic processes in place/and how is metabolism accomplished except by RNA and later DNA?

Metabolic processes that underpin life on Earth have arisen spontaneously outside of cells. The serendipitous finding that metabolism – the cascade of reactions in all cells that provides them with the raw materials they need to survive – can happen in such simple conditions provides fresh insights into how the first life formed. It also suggests that the complex processes needed for life may have surprisingly humble origins.
​

Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells - life - 25 April 2014 - New Scientist

 

[rusra02]

Yes google 'RNA World hypothesis' it will have links to the appropriate articles.

Sure there are a tiny few biologists who argue for ID, but they have no data to present, no hypothesis to test and no actual evidence.
Saying 'it is apparent' is meaningless, it sure isn't apparent to 99% of biologists, and has not been demonstrated experimentally.

A man returned panicked to a store where he had just shopped. "I lost my wallet" he exclaimed. "Don't worry, it is right here, on the counter" the clerk assured him. "Where, I don't see it" he cried. "Right here" said the clerk, pointing to the man's wallet. "But, but.. It has not been demonstrated experimentally that my wallet is there, so it isn't" cried the man, and left without his wallet.
You made the claim that RNA forms naturally. Reference to a google search is not proof.

 

[Bunyip]

A man returned panicked to a store where he had just shopped. "I lost my wallet" he exclaimed. "Don't worry, it is right here, on the counter" the clerk assured him. "Where, I don't see it" he cried. "Right here" said the clerk, pointing to the man's wallet. "But, but.. It has not been demonstrated experimentally that my wallet is there, so it isn't" cried the man, and left without his wallet.
You made the claim that RNA forms naturally. Reference to a google search is not proof.

That makes no sense. Pointing to the wallet IS a demonstration of it's presence. Being able to directly observe, and touch the wallet is all the experimental demonstration you would ever need.

Sadly ID proponants have no wallet to point to.

 

[rusra02]

I wasn't aware of this thread before; but from what I've read, it's another god-in-the-gaps argument - since the pathway to the origins of life is still unknown, it's a gap in knowledge where the supernatural can be inserted.

But, over time, many previous gaps...like the so called irreducible complexities: the human eye, the blood-clotting cascade, and the little flagella motors that move many one celled bacteria, are mysteries that have been cleared up, or have many of the steps filled in, making them less fertile ground for supernatural arguments.

The Earth is estimated to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. There is evidence in the Western Australian desert of archaea (primitive bacteria) that lived 3.5 billion years ago. The implications are that life began on Earth very soon after meteor bombardments stopped and the surface was able to cool. And this is billions of years before the great diversity of life known as the Cambrian Explosion.

So, the picture of life on Earth is that simple one-celled life is easy to make, while the hard part is getting conditions right to support complex multicellular life forms. A recent lab study on possible abiogenesis pathways that I noticed on the Science + Religion blog, is leading to a conclusion that the road to the first life forms was likely not as "irreducibly complex" as many assume today, because it is apparently possible to create metabolic networks in the absence of RNA. Up till now, this has been a chicken and egg problem: how do you make the first self-replicating RNA molecules without metabolic processes in place/and how is metabolism accomplished except by RNA and later DNA?

Metabolic processes that underpin life on Earth have arisen spontaneously outside of cells. The serendipitous finding that metabolism – the cascade of reactions in all cells that provides them with the raw materials they need to survive – can happen in such simple conditions provides fresh insights into how the first life formed. It also suggests that the complex processes needed for life may have surprisingly humble origins.
​

Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells - life - 25 April 2014 - New Scientist

Where to begin? Ah, here. "So, the picture of life on Earth is that simple one-celled life is easy to make". Realllly? So surely by now scientists have been able to make one cell, yes?
You must disagree with biologist Russell Charles Artist. He said: “We are confronted with formidable, even insuperable, difficulties in trying to account for [the cell’s] beginning and, for that matter, its continued functioning, unless we maintain with reason and logic that an intelligence, a mind, brought it into existence.”
As to the so-called gaps you claim are being bridged, pertinent is this quote from W07 8/15: "But what are the gaps referred to here? Are they merely small and insignificant gaps in our knowledge? No, they are real chasms of plausibility that exist in Darwinian evolution. They are fundamental breaches in aspects of biology that the theory of evolution has been incapable of bridging. In all fairness, evolutionists who rely on unsupported assertions effectively make the Darwinian theory their “God-of-the-gaps.”
Your claim that "irreducible complexities: the human eye, the blood-clotting cascade, and the little flagella motors that move many one celled bacteria, are mysteries that have been cleared up" means what, exactly? Cleared up in what way?

 

[rusra02]

That makes no sense. Pointing to the wallet IS a demonstration of it's presence. Being able to directly observe, and touch the wallet is all the experimental demonstration you would ever need.

Sadly ID proponants have no wallet to point to.

"What may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. *For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [those who deny the Creator] are inexcusable." (Romans 1:19,20) The wallet has always been there. Sadly, many choose not to see it.

 

[Bunyip]

Where to begin? Ah, here. "So, the picture of life on Earth is that simple one-celled life is easy to make". Realllly? So surely by now scientists have been able to make one cell, yes?
You must disagree with biologist Russell Charles Artist. He said: “We are confronted with formidable, even insuperable, difficulties in trying to account for [the cell’s] beginning and, for that matter, its continued functioning, unless we maintain with reason and logic that an intelligence, a mind, brought it into existence.”
As to the so-called gaps you claim are being bridged, pertinent is this quote from W07 8/15: "But what are the gaps referred to here? Are they merely small and insignificant gaps in our knowledge? No, they are real chasms of plausibility that exist in Darwinian evolution. They are fundamental breaches in aspects of biology that the theory of evolution has been incapable of bridging. In all fairness, evolutionists who rely on unsupported assertions effectively make the Darwinian theory their “God-of-the-gaps.”
Your claim that "irreducible complexities: the human eye, the blood-clotting cascade, and the little flagella motors that move many one celled bacteria, are mysteries that have been cleared up" means what, exactly? Cleared up in what way?

Yes, scientists have been able to make self replicating molecules within lipid vessicles - the simplest form of life.

Your reference to RC Artist by the way is 44 years old, it was published in 1970. The irreducible complexity of the flagellum and the blood clotting cascade were refuted years ago.

 

[Bunyip]

"What may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. *For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [those who deny the Creator] are inexcusable." (Romans 1:19,20) The wallet has always been there. Sadly, many choose not to see it.

Ahh yes, the good old 'Emperors New Clothes' story.

The thing is that in the end of that story it turned out that he wasn't wearing any - not even a wallet.

 

[rusra02]

Yes, scientists have been able to make self replicating molecules within lipid vessicles - the simplest form of life.

Your reference to RC Artist by the way is 44 years old, it was published in 1970. The irreducible complexity of the flagellum and the blood clotting cascade were refuted years ago.

Do you really claim that scientists have created life? Any how do you claim the complexity of the blood clotting cascade was refuted?

 

[Parsimony]

I'm actually not sure that RNA as a polymer has been demonstrated to arise from plausible abiotic conditions. However, individual RNA nucleotides (at least the pyrimidine versions) have been demonstrated to arise from simple abiotic precursor molecules. A mechanism that allows them to polymerize still needs to be found (unless it's already been done and I'm just not aware of it). Then again, I think I did read something about some minerals or clays causing just such a thing to happen. I can't recall the details, however.

Earlier this year, it would seem that a self-replicating RNA enzyme capable of evolving was reported as well. However, it seems that it requires oligonucleotides (short chains of RNA monomers) in order to replicate. An ideal solution would be to find one that can replicate with single nucleotides. I find it unfortunate that the paper as a whole does not seem to be publicly available for more scrutiny.

 

[Bunyip]

Do you really claim that scientists have created life? Any how do you claim the complexity of the blood clotting cascade was refuted?

You refer to a book written in the 1960's in a debate about abiogenesis, why not just do a little research into the last half century of science in that field and THEN at least your opinions will be informed?

 

[work in progress]

Where to begin? Ah, here. "So, the picture of life on Earth is that simple one-celled life is easy to make". Realllly? So surely by now scientists have been able to make one cell, yes?

As already noted, scientists have made self-replicating molecules...which is a very significant step towards understanding life's origins. But, even if such work expands to making artificial living organisms, there is still no way of knowing what the exact pathway was in the early history of the Earth for the first living creatures to form. We also have no way of knowing whether there were many competing RNA-based life forms, or if there was just one...since all existing life today comes from common origins, and any competitors were eliminated long ago.

For the natural organic chemistry of the early Earth, the process of creating life may have been simple because it happened so rapidly after the Earth's crust had cooled down enough to solidify and allow oceans to form. If you believe the first living creatures are the product of intelligent design, you need to explain to me why an intelligent designer would get the ball rolling so early to make one celled organisms, and then wait more than 3 billion years to start making more complex multicellular life.

You must disagree with biologist Russell Charles Artist. He said: “We are confronted with formidable, even insuperable, difficulties in trying to account for [the cell’s] beginning and, for that matter, its continued functioning, unless we maintain with reason and logic that an intelligence, a mind, brought it into existence.”

Well, whenever that biologist made that statement: was he contending that it will never be explained? The difference between a scientist and a creationist, is to a scientist, an unsolved mystery is a problem waiting to be explained through natural processes, while the creationist is hoping it is proof that God exists and hopes that the mystery will never be solved.

As to the so-called gaps you claim are being bridged, pertinent is this quote from W07 8/15: "But what are the gaps referred to here? Are they merely small and insignificant gaps in our knowledge? No, they are real chasms of plausibility that exist in Darwinian evolution.They are fundamental breaches in aspects of biology that the theory of evolution has been incapable of bridging.

Until they are bridged! As Ken Miller noted in a rebuttal to Behe's claim that flagella are proof of intelligent design:

Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.
​

The Flagellum Unspun

He notes that the flagella motors have become the example of divine intervention that the human eye was to creationists of the 19th century. But, what sense does I.D. make as an explanatory theory: God allows evolution to proceed and lead to a diverse multitude of one celled creatures, beginning with archaea through bacteria and eukaryotes, but has to step in and make little motors so these one celled creatures can propel themselves through water...but he can't use the same design for all three, but instead has to create three different versions of flagella motors! This is where your I.D./creationism falls down - where you have to go beyond using it to attack and criticize evolutionary theory, to explaining how special creative interventions fit in to the fabric of natural history.

In all fairness, evolutionists who rely on unsupported assertions effectively make the Darwinian theory their “God-of-the-gaps.”
Your claim that "irreducible complexities: the human eye, the blood-clotting cascade, and the little flagella motors that move many one celled bacteria, are mysteries that have been cleared up" means what, exactly? Cleared up in what way?

Cleared up in the sense that there are plausible natural explanations for how they occur, that don't require divine or supernatural interventions. If God has to intervene in the evolutionary process, why is it mundane events like making motors for one celled animals? Why not intervene and fix design flaws that are left behind by the process of natural selection...like redundant organs such as the appendix; or change the plumbing in the human male so our urethra's don't run straight through the prostate gland! The vast majority of men will eventually have prostate cancer if they live past age 80, because an enlarged prostate is a natural example of unintelligent design that was never replaced. So, can we call on the creator to fix our plumbing? Just asking!

 

[rusra02]

As already noted, scientists have made self-replicating molecules...which is a very significant step towards understanding life's origins. But, even if such work expands to making artificial living organisms, there is still no way of knowing what the exact pathway was in the early history of the Earth for the first living creatures to form. We also have no way of knowing whether there were many competing RNA-based life forms, or if there was just one...since all existing life today comes from common origins, and any competitors were eliminated long ago.

For the natural organic chemistry of the early Earth, the process of creating life may have been simple because it happened so rapidly after the Earth's crust had cooled down enough to solidify and allow oceans to form. If you believe the first living creatures are the product of intelligent design, you need to explain to me why an intelligent designer would get the ball rolling so early to make one celled organisms, and then wait more than 3 billion years to start making more complex multicellular life.


Well, whenever that biologist made that statement: was he contending that it will never be explained? The difference between a scientist and a creationist, is to a scientist, an unsolved mystery is a problem waiting to be explained through natural processes, while the creationist is hoping it is proof that God exists and hopes that the mystery will never be solved.


Until they are bridged! As Ken Miller noted in a rebuttal to Behe's claim that flagella are proof of intelligent design:

Remember the claim that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional?" As the evidence has shown, nature is filled with examples of "precursors" to the flagellum that are indeed "missing a part," and yet are fully-functional. Functional enough, in some cases, to pose a serious threat to human life.
​

The Flagellum Unspun

He notes that the flagella motors have become the example of divine intervention that the human eye was to creationists of the 19th century. But, what sense does I.D. make as an explanatory theory: God allows evolution to proceed and lead to a diverse multitude of one celled creatures, beginning with archaea through bacteria and eukaryotes, but has to step in and make little motors so these one celled creatures can propel themselves through water...but he can't use the same design for all three, but instead has to create three different versions of flagella motors! This is where your I.D./creationism falls down - where you have to go beyond using it to attack and criticize evolutionary theory, to explaining how special creative interventions fit in to the fabric of natural history.


Cleared up in the sense that there are plausible natural explanations for how they occur, that don't require divine or supernatural interventions. If God has to intervene in the evolutionary process, why is it mundane events like making motors for one celled animals? Why not intervene and fix design flaws that are left behind by the process of natural selection...like redundant organs such as the appendix; or change the plumbing in the human male so our urethra's don't run straight through the prostate gland! The vast majority of men will eventually have prostate cancer if they live past age 80, because an enlarged prostate is a natural example of unintelligent design that was never replaced. So, can we call on the creator to fix our plumbing? Just asking!

Regarding the appendix, Michael Behe said in an interview: "Just because we don’t know the reason for some feature in an organism does not mean that it doesn’t have an important role to play. For example, so-called vestigial organs were once thought to show that the human body and other organisms were poorly designed. The appendix and the tonsils, for instance, were once thought to be vestigial organs and were routinely removed. But then it was discovered that these organs play a role in the immune system, and they are no longer considered vestigial."
I believe the same can be said for the urethra running through the prostate. Just like the heart, lungs, kidneys, etc. the prostate works well for decades. It is the effects of sin and man's alienation from God that causes our bodies to decay and finally die, not any flaw in design. (Romans 5:12, 6:23)
So-called design flaws are nothing of the sort, IMO.

 

[Bunyip]

Regarding the appendix, Michael Behe said in an interview: "Just because we don’t know the reason for some feature in an organism does not mean that it doesn’t have an important role to play. For example, so-called vestigial organs were once thought to show that the human body and other organisms were poorly designed. The appendix and the tonsils, for instance, were once thought to be vestigial organs and were routinely removed. But then it was discovered that these organs play a role in the immune system, and they are no longer considered vestigial."
I believe the same can be said for the urethra running through the prostate. Just like the heart, lungs, kidneys, etc. the prostate works well for decades. It is the effects of sin and man's alienation from God that causes our bodies to decay and finally die, not any flaw in design. (Romans 5:12, 6:23)
So-called design flaws are nothing of the sort, IMO.

You are trying to use Micheal Behe to argue points he never made. So what if vestigial features have uses? There are still vestigial, there is nothing 'so called' about vestigial features, and then can still serve a useful function.

 

[outhouse]

Michael Behe said

.

Thats is the problem, his lips were moving.

He has no credibility what so ever. :slap:

 

[Ouroboros]

It reminds me of the programmer joke we used to make.

It's not a bug. It's an undocumented feature...

 

[work in progress]

Regarding the appendix, Michael Behe said in an interview: "Just because we don’t know the reason for some feature in an organism does not mean that it doesn’t have an important role to play. For example, so-called vestigial organs were once thought to show that the human body and other organisms were poorly designed. The appendix and the tonsils, for instance, were once thought to be vestigial organs and were routinely removed. But then it was discovered that these organs play a role in the immune system, and they are no longer considered vestigial."
I believe the same can be said for the urethra running through the prostate. Just like the heart, lungs, kidneys, etc. the prostate works well for decades. It is the effects of sin and man's alienation from God that causes our bodies to decay and finally die, not any flaw in design. (Romans 5:12, 6:23)
So-called design flaws are nothing of the sort, IMO.

Well first, the discoveries in recent years of some now extinct simple flagella components that are combined together in the function of bacterial flagella, defeats Behe's main argument that the flagella is irreducibly complex. The existence of now extinct "scaffolding" are steps along the way of "climbing mount improbable."

On vestigial organs, the problem is that Behe is spinning the argument for design by arguing that any function means they are not vestiges. The point that Darwin was the first to make on this issue and many others have followed up on over the years is not that vestigial organs have no purpose...well, some of them don't seem to have any purpose anymore...like wisdom teeth...but the function of tonsils and especially the appendix is drastically reduced from earlier function.

The appendix specifically, is a very important organ in many vegetarian creatures...like our more distant ancestors, but our's has shrunk and has become a hazzard..especially for people who eat high meat/ low fiber diets. Our modern condition of becoming dependent on high amounts of protein, while still having the digestive tract of a vegetarian, mean that we are caught depending on meat and ruining our health and dying earlier by consuming meat.

The example I gave...which in point of fact is not a significant problem for me personally...at least not yet - the prostate gland - gradually enlarges in males over time because of that basic design flaw of running the urethra right through the middle of it. All of these organs have purpose, but the way they have been cobbled together is NOT a sign of intelligent design by a long shot!

A few years back, I watched a long lecture by a British neuroscientist (who's name I can't recall now) who made the point that the human brain itself, is one of the most glaring examples of suboptimal design, largely because of the way newer, more sophisticated components have been added on to the original brain systems we share with reptiles and amphibians. For example, the purpose of the thalamus - located in the mid-brain region, is mostly to "translate" the information from neuroelectric signals from our nervous system and brainstem levels to the higher and newer cortex levels. This is a waste of energy and resources that appear to be the main reason why some intelligent birds like parrots and crows, are almost equal to primates in intelligence and communication abilities, even though their brains are only about one third the mass of a great ape. Just saying, if the brain of primates and specifically humans was a product of intelligent design, it could have been designed as one system that would have required about a third of the mass and been much less taxing on our energy resources.

 

[Ouroboros]

You are trying to use Micheal Behe to argue points he never made. So what if vestigial features have uses? There are still vestigial, there is nothing 'so called' about vestigial features, and then can still serve a useful function.

And if they're supposedly so "important", why can we remove the appendix without any health risks? It can't be that important to the function of survival. Besides, it's strange that God would have to design a "pocket" to store beneficial microbes for our the purpose of our digestion. Why even have microbes/probiotics at all? Why did God create us that we have to have foreign bacteria/yeast/live-culture in us to break down food? It's a very twisted idea, when God just as well could have made our body produce the cells/proteins/whatever to do it. We do some of it ourselves, but we're dependent on foreign lifeforms too. Such a strange design. And then God had to put a safety pocket in our intestines just in case we get sick to save some of the bacteria. Why even get sick? Did God plan that we would get stomach bugs when he designed us? What about sickness following the fall? Did God create us to handle sickness before the fall? What a twisted guy!

 

[viole]

Regarding the appendix, Michael Behe said in an interview: "Just because we don’t know the reason for some feature in an organism does not mean that it doesn’t have an important role to play. For example, so-called vestigial organs were once thought to show that the human body and other organisms were poorly designed. The appendix and the tonsils, for instance, were once thought to be vestigial organs and were routinely removed. But then it was discovered that these organs play a role in the immune system, and they are no longer considered vestigial."
I believe the same can be said for the urethra running through the prostate. Just like the heart, lungs, kidneys, etc. the prostate works well for decades. It is the effects of sin and man's alienation from God that causes our bodies to decay and finally die, not any flaw in design. (Romans 5:12, 6:23)
So-called design flaws are nothing of the sort, IMO.

So, before the fall, the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe was only a few inches long (as any rational engineer would have designed it) and after the fall it suddenly took a few extra feet (15) to follow the ludicrous path it takes today?

I also have a question that sort of troubled me when I was a creationist. Why did God create Adam with nipples?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

I also have a question that sort of troubled me when I was a creationist. Why did God create Adam with nipples?

And even rudimentary mammary glands. Males are half-female after all, genetically. But why? God can create 20 million species and millions of variations on top of that, but can't create two separate full chromosomes with distinct separate features? The design is much more compatible with evolution than with creationism.

 

[starless]

It is day 5 and god has just created the octopus.

The design of the eyes is perfect: the nerve spreads out under the surface of the retina and then goes up through the retina, so that the light receptors end up pointing towards the incoming light. Simply flawless.

However, later on the same day a much sloppier design is used for Adam's eye: the nerve fibers spread over the very surface of the retina, burrowing down into it through layers of epithelial cells and end up with light receptors pointing away from the light. As a result, light has to go through the nerves and through multiple layers of tissue before reaching the receptors. This significantly reduces the efficiency of the eye and creates a blind spot on the retina.

So, why did humans end up with the flawed version of the original perfect eye design?

Evolution can answer this question. Can you?