People can believe whatever they like. But the irreducible complexity claim is nothing more than the argument from incredulity.
Since the cells irreducible complexity requires that all its parts be present and functional and properly organised for it to work. Since the probability of such an arrangement emerging by chemical evolution by chance is virtually 0 we have to conclude that it is a product of a Creator.
"The picture of the cell provided by modern molecular biology has led scientists to redefine the question of the origin of life. The discovery of lifes information processing systems, with their elaborate functional integration of proteins and nucleic acids, has made it clear that scientists investigating the origin of life must now explain the origin of at least three key features of life.
1) they must explain the origin of the system for storing and encoding digital information in the cell, DNAs capacity to store digitally encoded information.
2) they must explain the origin of the large amount of specified complexity or functionally specified information in DNA.
3) they must explain the origin of the integrated complexity - the functional interdependence of the parts- of the cells information - processing system." Meyer Signature in the Cell
Various attempts have been made by atheistic evolutionists / abiogenesis proponents to justify their commitment, by blind faith, to the improbable possibility that the cell evolved from chemicals by chance.
1) random molecular interactions
2) lawlike forces (necessity)
3) a combination of necessity and chance
However the probability of the complex specificity of function and sequence, organisation and appearance of intelligence, that we can observe in the cell, emerging by chance is so low as to render these attempts completely preposterous
Nope. Irreducible complexity examples are almost always debunked rather quickly.
I believe it's called HYDROGEN BONDING and BOND ANGLES. That's pretty much the basis. If you have two chemicals that can coordinate then one chemical can easily "template" the other chemical or some other chemical. The passage of the information is pretty simplistic.
If you want to discuss EVOLUTION you need to remember that ORIGIN OF LIFE has nothing to do with evolution.
Chance does play a role in chemistry, but usually not as loosey-goosey as you may think. Chemicals follow a suite of rather specific rules, most of which are relatively simple. But when combined produce emergent complexity.
Again, misuse of probability and a general lack of understanding of basic chemistry does NOT provide evidence of a Creator or Intelligent Design.
We know for sure God created all that is -- this Universe, and thus all that is in it also!
When discussing the mere small details of just chemistry, that's interesting, but perhaps you'd agree it can get a little too involved and make us miss the big picture at times. Or even if you don't think so because you love chemistry, still I hope to talk with you about something special to know, which you can consider quickly and easily.
If, like me, you truly believe that God created all that is
then, logically, everything, including the laws of nature -- physics, chemistry -- is His design.
Right?
So, if physics is His design, His work, as I believe, believing He created everything, then....
therefore it follows logically that it could be that physics, chemistry, really work great, because He made them!
I bet you agree with all of that (just my guess), but here's what I want you to consider:
Why shouldn't we expect that God would choose to make physics, chemistry, that is favorable to life!?
Why would He choose to make physics that is unfavorable to life???
If He made physics that is favorable to life, then if follows logically that life may arise on other planets by natural processes, Because He is the Designer of physics! and this is His Universe. His.
Yes?
But anyone reading this -- notice that there are many powerful advantages to Earth that very, very few other planets out there will have, and I can list them, because astrophysics is my hobby, and I'd be happy to, just ask.
science is base on experiments. so far all experiments prove that there is no stepwise to evolve a biological system. so basically the claim of irreducible complexity is base on scientific method were evolution belief isnt.
God created a universe of which the laws of science give a measure of discernment and cause for wonder. But the universe does not contain the sum of his wisdom or creativity and so it is a place where a merely naturalistic method will not give the ability to create from nothing nor indeed understand how life was created. So experts on this forum will strut and parade their titles and knowledge but cannot duplicate what they claim to understand. This supernatural and miraculous element will always mean that understanding requires a balance between what we know of the how of scientific laws , what we know of how the Creator acted and what we do not know about how He acted.
Since the cells irreducible complexity
requires that all its parts be present and functional and properly organised for it to work.
Since the probability of such an arrangement emerging by chemical evolution by chance is virtually 0 we have to conclude that it is a product of a Creator.
No, you are.
But seriously, I'm wondering if sexual reproduction as a process is irreducibly complex.
Thanks for the links, but the first one doesn't address what I said, and I'm not going read hundreds of thousands of papers to see if those papers attempt to.Nope - there's plenty of evidence on the evolution and nature of the development of sex. Literally hundreds of thousands of papers on the topic.
We're not talking about Evolution here as such, rather the thread OP focuses on Biogenesis.Here are some equations I don't understand:
There’s plenty of time for evolution
Does epigentics change this? Or evo-devo? Or Chicxulub?
I believe that the scientists are doing the best they can, and evolution is the best scientific model. But can we honestly say it all adds up, or is there missing data (space for new discoveries which change the odds, and prove the old set wrong)???
When we are discussing Biogenesis it becomes apparent, very quickly, that the Universe is far, far to young, in the order of 100 times to young, for the observed phenomena to have arisen, even on one occasion, by chance.The universe is astronomically large and old.
Thing is, a modern cell is the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution. The very first replicators would have been relatively simple - perhaps just single strands of RNA, perhaps without even a cell wall (there are many hypotheses being researched - 'RNA World' is a popular subset). Comparing them with modern cells is like comparing a sled with the latest Audi A4.Yes there is an improbability to many things. However when we speak of a cell we are talking about a complexity that is unlikely to arise from random collisions because there is a complex specificity of sequence , function and arrangement that adds to those odds astronomically. So we are not just talking about the spontaneous arrival of an amino acid from mixing chemicals and passing electric current , we are talking about an arrangement of 20 different kinds that must cohere perfectly in specific sequence, function and areangement. Indeed unless all the required variables are present it cannot happen in fact. But how those influences were put in place in the first place so that it could happen is a mystery. A cannot cause B without B already existing. But A is required if we want to prove evolution. It seems the evidence says the chicken came first but how can there be a chicken if there was not first an egg.
No, it's an abstraction of part of a biological system.and a genome isnt a biological system?
Since the cells irreducible complexity
However the probability of the complex specificity of function and sequence, organisation and appearance of intelligence, that we can observe in the cell, emerging by chance is so low as to render these attempts completely preposterous
Quite apart from the problems with RNA world hypothesis, the functional coherence of even a sled is such that it is fantastically improbable that such a thing would have originated by chance during the age of the universe, let alone the A4.Thing is, a modern cell is the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution. The very first replicators would have been relatively simple - perhaps just single strands of RNA, perhaps without even a cell wall (there are many hypotheses being researched - 'RNA World' is a popular subset). Comparing them with modern cells is like comparing a sled with the latest Audi A4.
This experiment has been discounted on a number of grounds and yet continues to come back from the grave ....... Zombie Science anyone?Read about the Miller-Urey experiment and the work of Juan Oro. Amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and nucleotides (of which RNA and DNA are composed) have been created experimentally from simple compounds by purely natural processes. That's still quite a ways from knowing how life appeared, but it's a first step.
Miller-Urey Experiment
You think 300 years ago, anyone would have thought it possible that we'd understand the biochemical basis of inheritance, or how nerve cells transmit impulses, or how the immune system fights infection? You have no idea of what we may learn in centuries to come.
This experiment has been discounted on a number of grounds and yet continues to come back from the grave