Humpty Dumpty will continue to baffle scientists for years to come...

[Breckmin]

I know it is somewhat of an embarassing thing for me to do....
but I have decided to publish Humpty Dumpty here on CF.

For the last couple years we have seen Jonathan Wells from the
Discovery Institute make the comparison of a living cell to Humpty
Dumpty and how scientists can not put it back together once the
living cell wall (lipid bi-layers) and its internal parts are compromised.

So just as Humpty Dumpty the egg (and most of us know that
Humpty Dumpty was originally a cannon during the English Civil War)
sat on a wall and was fine until his fall, so the living cell is alive
with all its proteins, enzymes and interrelated biochemical processes
until the cell wall is broken and the cytoplasm is compromised.
So here we go:

Re: a living cell

Humpty Dumpty was alive with it all
'til Humpty Dumpty broke his cell wall
All of the world's scientists and all of the world's men
Couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again

2008 - Michael Breck (assigned to public domain)

Copy and distribute at will (feel free to take off my name too, BTW)

My prediction is that in the next 50 years they will still not be able
to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
But even if they could, this would not falsify the "Law of Biogenesis"
that life comes from other life because they would be doing an
intelligent act of cellular repair. In order to falsify the Law of Biogenesis
you have to use natural conditions which can occur like the Stanley
Miller experiment that failed to produce amino acids using the correct
early earth's atomosphere. If you are using tools to move things
around and put them back, you have not falsified the "Law of Biogenesis."
Just as Mike Behe claimed that ID was falsifiable, so also I would claim
that the Law of Biogenesis is falsifiable.
Machines don't get fixed by lightning. SomeBody has to fix them.
~Michael B.

 

[Breckmin]

Re: a living cell

Humpty Dumpty was alive with it all
'til Humpty Dumpty broke his cell wall
All of the world's scientists and all of the world's men
Couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again

I did try to send this to Lee Strobel and J Wells because of
Lee's video which made Well's comment famous but I am not
certain they will read those emails.
~Michael

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

It is strange how Humpty Dumpty evolved into an egg, from a cannon... I blame it on the kinder garten school system.

 

[Biblewriter]

In order to falsify the Law of Biogenesis
you have to use natural conditions which can occur like the Stanley
Miller experiment that failed to produce amino acids using the correct
early earth's atomosphere.

And how did they come up with the "correct" early earth´s atmosphere?

That came from their theory of what it would have to have been for biogenesis to have taken place. The truth is that they did not have a particle of evidence that the earth ever had such an atmosphere.

 

[Breckmin]

And how did they come up with the "correct" early earth´s atmosphere?

In all fairness it is based on hypothesis.

That came from their theory of what it would have to have been for abiogenesis<sic> to have taken place. The truth is that they did not have a particle of evidence that the earth ever had such an atmosphere.

The interesting observation is that the abiogenesis theory has regressed
to primitive self-replicating cells which some even claimed had completely
different metabolic pathways which may not have contained enzymes
and proteins. Because of what we know about the complexity of "modern"
eukaryotic cells, they have had to postulate the possibility of completely
different pathways. Perhaps even archaic cells which did not contain
RNA?

This is where atheism has to rely on science fiction in order to survive
observations that are falsifiable with cellular complexity. The claim is
that the first cells that existed 3.8 billion years ago were different from
modern eukaryotic cells because of the mechanism of natural selection.

It seems natural selection has become the atheists' creator of life fulfilling that
we would worship the creation (naturalistic and materialistic processes)
rather than the Creator.

I hope I have made you think a second time.
Michael

 

[The Barbarian]

And how did they come up with the "correct" early earth´s atmosphere?

Turns out the atmosphere leaves clues in the rock formed at that time. We know it was of low oxygen content, because of the reduced iron formations, which could only form in very low concentrations of oxygen.

It's a moot point, now. The Murchison Meteorite was found to contain a large number of amino acids, some of which are not found in living things. So the point of the experiment, that amino acids can form abiotically in the sort of atmosphere found on the early earth, is confirmed.

That came from their theory of what it would have to have been for biogenesis to have taken place. The truth is that they did not have a particle of evidence that the earth ever had such an atmosphere.

And now you know better.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

I think we should get back on topic, this thread is about Humpty Dumpty.

 

[Breckmin]

I think we should get back on topic, this thread is about Humpty Dumpty.

Actually it is about a living cell. Thanks to J Wells over the last 3 years,
and his analogy that you "can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again"
(present tense), it has ramifications regarding the likelihood of abiogenesis,
even if the believe was that the cell physiology was different.

The thread wasn't meant to be about cannons or eggs. It was meant
to draw attention to the complexity of life at the cellular level and its
evidence for not only design, but special creation.

That is the implied topic of the thread. Thanks for the opportunity
to clarify.
~Michael

 

[The Barbarian]

"Baffled" scientists are found in newspaper tabloids, not real life. In real life, there are lots of remaining questions about everything in science. At one time, there was the law of "biogenetic organic chemistry." It was thought that only living things could make organic compounds. That went away. Then it was thought that only living things can make amino acids. And that turned out to be false. Then it was "only living things can make strings of amino acids." But that too, turned out to be wrong.

ID is merely a slow retreat from the advancing understanding of science.

 

[Breckmin]

This does beg the question about the first ribose under completely
"natural" conditions.....

 

[shernren]

Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
All the king's horses and all the king's men
found the next day that all the eggs they had for breakfast were a little cracked, as well.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
At one time, there was the law of "biogenetic organic chemistry." It was thought that only living things could make organic compounds. That went away. Then it was thought that only living things can make amino acids. And that turned out to be false. Then it was "only living things can make strings of amino acids." But that too, turned out to be wrong.

ID is merely a slow retreat from the advancing understanding of science.

This does beg the question about the first ribose under completely
"natural" conditions.....

The potential of pyrophosphate formation upon heating of hydrogenated orthophosphates like whitlockite ((Ca18Mg2H2(PO4)14) to a few hundred °C in geological environments with low water to rock ratio has probably been underestimated. Once pyrophosphate is available, phosphorylation of pentoses, ribose in particular, may occur.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AGUFM.B51D0419H

 

[Breckmin]

found the next day that all the eggs they had for breakfast were a little cracked, as well.

And that is when the creationists and IDers and IDDers came to town
and ate them for lunch....

Question everything. It just might lead you in the "right" direction.

~M

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

Actually it is about a living cell. Thanks to J Wells over the last 3 years,
and his analogy that you "can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again"
(present tense), it has ramifications regarding the likelihood of abiogenesis,
even if the believe was that the cell physiology was different.

The thread wasn't meant to be about cannons or eggs. It was meant
to draw attention to the complexity of life at the cellular level and its
evidence for not only design, but special creation.

That is the implied topic of the thread. Thanks for the opportunity
to clarify.
~Michael

yeah i know.