• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Teamwork for Life

LightBearer

Veteran
Aug 9, 2002
1,916
48
Visit site
✟19,072.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
Teamwork for Life

Life could not exist on earth without the teamwork of protein and nucleic acid molecules (DNA or RNA) within a living cell. Let us briefly review some of the details of that intriguing molecular teamwork, for they are the reason why many find it hard to believe that living cells appeared by accident.

Peering into the human body, down to and even inside our microscopic cells, we find that we consist primarily of protein molecules. Most of these are made up of ribbonlike strips of amino acids that are bent and twisted into various shapes. Some fold into a ball, whereas others are shaped like accordion pleats.

Certain proteins work with fatlike molecules to form cell membranes. Others help carry oxygen from the lungs to the rest of our body. Some proteins act as enzymes (catalysts) to digest our food by splitting the proteins in the food into amino acids. Those are just a few of the thousands of tasks that proteins perform. You would be right in saying that proteins are the skilled workers of life; without them life would not exist. Proteins, in turn, would not exist were it not for their link with DNA. But what is DNA? What is it like? How is it linked with proteins? Brilliant scientists have won Nobel prizes for uncovering the answers. We, though, do not have to be advanced biologists to grasp the basics.

The Master Molecule

Cells are largely made of proteins, so new proteins are constantly needed to maintain cells, to make new cells, and to facilitate chemical reactions within cells. The instructions needed for producing proteins are contained in the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecules. To understand better how protein is produced, take a closer look at DNA.

DNA molecules reside in the cell nucleus. In addition to carrying instructions necessary for the production of proteins, DNA stores and transmits genetic information from one generation of cells to the next. The shape of DNA molecules resembles a twisted rope ladder (termed a "double helix"). Each of the two strands in the DNA ladder consists of a vast number of smaller parts called nucleotides, which exist in one of four types: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). With this DNA "alphabet," a pair of letters-either A with T or G with C-form one rung in the double-helix ladder. The ladder contains thousands of genes, the basic units of heredity.

A gene holds the information needed to build a protein. The sequence of letters in the gene forms a coded message, or blueprint, that tells what kind of protein should be built. Hence, the DNA, with all its subunits, is the master molecule of life. Without its coded instructions, diverse proteins could not exist-thus no life.

The Go-Betweens

However, since the blueprint for building a protein is stored in the nucleus of the cell and the actual site for building proteins is outside the nucleus, help is needed to get the coded blueprint from the nucleus to the "building site." RNA (ribonucleic acid) molecules provide this help. RNA molecules are chemically similar to those of DNA, and several forms of RNA are needed to do the job. Take a closer look at these extremely complex processes for making our vital proteins with the help of RNA.

Work starts in the cell's nucleus, where a section of the DNA ladder unzips. This allows RNA letters to link to the exposed DNA letters of one of the DNA strands. An enzyme moves along the RNA letters to join them into a strand. Thus DNA letters are transcribed into RNA letters, forming what you might call a DNA dialect. The newly formed chain of RNA peels away, and the DNA ladder zips up again.

After further modification, this particular type of message-carrying RNA is ready. It moves out of the nucleus and heads for the protein-production site, where the RNA letters are decoded. Each set of three RNA letters forms a "word" that calls for one specific amino acid. Another form of RNA looks for that amino acid, grabs it with the help of an enzyme, and tows it to the "construction site." As the RNA sentence is being read and translated, a growing chain of amino acids is produced. This chain curls and folds into a unique shape, leading to one kind of protein. And there may well be over 50,000 kinds in our body.

Even this process of protein folding is significant. In 1996, scientists around the world, "armed with their best computer programs, competed to solve one of the most complex problems in biology: how a single protein, made from a long string of amino acids, folds itself into the intricate shape that determines the role it plays in life. . . . The result, succinctly put, was this: the computers lost and the proteins won. . . . Scientists have estimated that for an average-sized protein, made from 100 amino acids, solving the folding problem by trying every possibility would take 1027 (a billion billion billion) years."-The New York Times.

We have considered only a summary of how a protein is formed, but you can see what an incredibly complex process it is. Have you an idea of how long it takes for a chain of 20 amino acids to form? About one second! And this process goes on constantly in our body cells, from our head to our foot and everywhere in between.

What is the point? While other factors too numerous to mention are involved, the teamwork needed to produce and maintain life is awe-inspiring. And the term "teamwork" hardly describes the precise interaction required to produce a protein molecule, since a protein needs information from DNA molecules, and DNA needs several forms of specialized RNA molecules. Nor can we ignore the various enzymes, each performing a distinct and vital role. As our body makes new cells, which happens billions of times a day and without our conscious guidance, it requires copies of all three components-DNA, RNA, and protein. You can see why the magazine New Scientist comments: "Take away any one of the three and life grinds to a halt." Or take this a step further. Without a complete and functioning team, life could not have come about.

Is it reasonable that each of those three molecular team players arose spontaneously at the same time, in the same place, and so precisely tuned that they could combine to work their wonders?

There is, though, an alternative explanation as to how life on earth came about. Many have come to believe that life was the careful product of a Designer with intelligence of the highest order.
 

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟267,781.00
Faith
Atheist
Originally posted by LightBearer

Is it reasonable that each of those three molecular team players arose spontaneously at the same time, in the same place, and so precisely tuned that they could combine to work their wonders?

There is, though, an alternative explanation as to how life on earth came about. Many have come to believe that life was the careful product of a Designer with intelligence of the highest order.

Is it reasonable that all this happened to change magically as "God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; " (Genesis 2:7)?

This, also is an alternative explanation, and many believe in it.
 
Upvote 0
Life could not exist on earth without the teamwork of protein and nucleic acid molecules (DNA or RNA) within a living cell.

The key to many a creationist argument. A claim that is unlikely, unproven, and unprovable(*), as the single foundation of an intricate argument - an argument that falls completely apart unless that claim is true.

There are other holes in this cut & paste job, but they aren't worth our attention since:

1) the whole argument has nothing to do with evolution and,

2) None of us are qualified to accurately assess the intricacies of current abiogenesis research, and,

3) No theory in abiogenesis is strong enough at this point to really get behind, and creationism has no theory whatsoever about the origin of the first living things.  That leaves very little to discuss.

 

*Please don't put together homemade apologetics for this claim. Unless you are able to show how your list of possible scenarios for life without this "teamwork" is a complete list of all possibilities, and to show that each of those possibilities is wrong, you cannot have an argument to prove this claim. Just noting that modern life forms all exhibit this "teamwork" is merely begging the question that life always was as it is now - the premise behind your position.
 
Upvote 0

LightBearer

Veteran
Aug 9, 2002
1,916
48
Visit site
✟19,072.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
Originally posted by Freodin
Is it reasonable that all this happened to change magically as "God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; " (Genesis 2:7)?

This, also is an alternative explanation, and many believe in it.

At least there's inteligent direction behind this explanation.
 
Upvote 0

Stormy

Senior Contributor
Jun 16, 2002
9,441
868
St. Louis, Mo
Visit site
✟67,254.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Others
LightBearer : Thank you. You have shown in your way what we already know. Contrary to the atheist view of life...God is Needed!

But do not expect the atheist to roll over in defeat. The comments you have thus far received are typical. When they are unable to debate the truth..they will either ridicule your beliefs or dismiss you all together.

That is a win for you! :)

You did good!! :clap:
 
Upvote 0

Stormy

Senior Contributor
Jun 16, 2002
9,441
868
St. Louis, Mo
Visit site
✟67,254.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Others
As science digs deeper and deeper for understanding of our life and this Universe it will be overwhelmed by unanswered mysteries. The "God of the Gaps" as you Atheistic like to refer to him will increase in wonder.


No, it is not a prophecy. ;) I am just being realistic!!
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by Freodin
Is it reasonable that all this happened to change magically as "God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; " (Genesis 2:7)?

This, also is an alternative explanation, and many believe in it.

The situation with Adam, Eve & the garden of Eden is different from the rest of creation that we read about in Chapter one.

Adam, Eve & the Eden were special to God. He formed them Himself. They were not a part of the origional creation. There are those who believe that the male and female God created to be "food gathers" did not have a soul. But that Adam and Eve did have a soul and were more like God, then the origional "humans" that God created.

The pastor in my church does not really care what sort of bones they find, if they are monkeys, cave men or whatever. That they were very much different from Adam and Eve.

The only thing that the Bible compares to Eden was the cedar forest in Lebanon north of Isreal. But so little of that is left today. That is where they got the lumber to built the boats that sailed the oceans, and also the wood to build the temple and solomons house. The area is more known for it's skiing today, but there are some trees left that are close to 2000 years old.

http://www.lebanon-tourism.gov.lb/photosearch.asp?cpage=10&param=w&ptype=3&kadaaId=3
 
Upvote 0

DNAunion

Well-Known Member
Sep 9, 2002
677
0
Visit site
✟1,109.00
DNAunion: If you are challenging the "materialsts" you have to address their position.

1) If you are looking at abiogenesis you need to leave the human body out of the discussion.

2) If you are looking at the "wonders" of the human body, you have to take billions of years of evolution into consideration.

For example, you looked at the human body and said that DNA is contained in the nucleus. That is true - for humans. But prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea) don't have nuclei. And, they are closer to the original form of life than are humans.

If you arguing against a purely natural origin of life you have to look at simpler organisms than humans.

Now, about the "every member of the team is needed" idea. Yes, in life as we know it, that is true - if you remove (and don't allow to be reformed) DNA or RNA or proteins from any cellular life it will die. But does that necessarily mean that there is no possible simpler arrangement that could exist in a living organism? No - not necessarily.

Consider this analogous position. Mitochondria are the "power houses" of our cells - if you remove them from one of your muscle cells, for example, that cell will eventually die. Does that mean that it is impossible for a cell to exist without mitochondria? No - prokaryotes don't have mitochondria.

Let's look at the Central Dogma of molecular cell biology. There are three processes - replication, transcription, and translation. Each one utilizes at least two of the three members of the "team" (i.e., DNA, RNA, and proteins)

REPLICATION
1) proteins unwind the DNA double helix and create a copy of the whole darned thing
2) RNA is used as a primer to get the DNA polymerase proteins started
3) DNA - passive role: it doesn't do anything except sit there and allow itself to be copied

TRANSCRIPTION
1) proteins unwind the DNA double helix and create a copy of a stretch of it
2) RNA - it is the output of the process
3) DNA - passive role: it doesn't do anything except sit there and allow itself to be copied

TRANSLATION
1) proteins - not only the endproduct, but also involved in the process (charging tRNA molecules, elongation factors, parts of ribosomes, etc.)
2) RNA - essential: mRNA carries the information to make the protein, rRNA forms the most important part of the ribosome, tRNA bring the correct amino acid to the ribosome
3) DNA - not used

Contrary to what many migh expect, DNA is looking like the least valuable member of the team! All it does is passively store information. Yet RNA stores that same information, though temporarily and in pieces instead of all together: and RNA is the ESSENTIAL molecule for protein synthesis, being directly involved in all aspects.

The three members of the team can be divided into two main categories, by function: informational - the nucleic acids; and catalytic - the proteins.

What is needed is information and catalysis, not necessarily DNA and RNA for information. Since DNA is the lesser essential of the two, let's assume that in earlier times life got by without DNA - RNA served the functions of storing and delivering information, both.

Now we have eliminated one of the members by unification. That leaves proteins for catalysis and RNA for information. But what if RNA could act as a catalyst? Then another unification could be achieved: RNA could play the role of both the informational molecule and the catalytic molecule.

Such is the case - catalytic RNAs are called ribozymes.

Thus, it is conceptually possible to eliminate two of the team members leaving only RNA. This brings us to one of the key theories in the origin of life, the RNA World proper.

So if you are going to argue against a purely natural origin of life, you don't need to look at things like the human body, but things like potential RNA-only organisms.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
52
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by LightBearer
Teamwork for Life

*SNIP SNIP SNIP*

Is it reasonable that each of those three molecular team players arose spontaneously at the same time, in the same place, and so precisely tuned that they could combine to work their wonders?

There is, though, an alternative explanation as to how life on earth came about. Many have come to believe that life was the careful product of a Designer with intelligence of the highest order.

You mean I read all that just to get to yet another Intelligent Design apologetic?

*sigh* Time to debunk this one:

Ok LightBearer, you convinced me. It would be impossible that something this complex just "arose spontaneously." It must have been designed by some mysterious designer.

But wait just a minute: If there is a designer, he/she/it must be vastly more complex than his/her/its design. Something that complex couldn't have "arisen spontaneously" either.

So..... who/what designed the designer?
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
52
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by seesaw
It might be Strawman but it's a good question.

Where's the Strawman?

Intelligent Design hinges on one critical statement: That basically, life, the universe, and everything is too complex to have evolved on its own. It could have only become what it is today as a result of deliberate design by "a Designer with intelligence of the highest order."

A simplification, yes, but is it a strawman?

If it is, then please clarify. If not, let us continue: If we decide that there was, in fact, a designer, the next logical step is to detrmine who/what that designer is. It wouldn't take long to realize that this designer fellow (excuse my gender bias by using masculine) must be extraordinarily complex in his own right to have created everything.

So complex, that he could not have come about without being "designed" himself.

So I shall repeat my question: Who/what designed the designer? And then who designed THAT designer? Reductio Ad Absurdum.

If the designer has no designer, then it means that complex phenomena doesn't need a designer after all, which tosses ID out the window.

But I ask again: Where's the strawman?
 
Upvote 0

Stormy

Senior Contributor
Jun 16, 2002
9,441
868
St. Louis, Mo
Visit site
✟67,254.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Others
But I ask again: Where's the strawman?

You already know that we will tell you... God is Alpha and Omega!

But since you can not dispute the evidence offered on this thread

You make an attack instead on the basis of our Faith.
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
53
Bloomington, Illinois
✟26,875.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Originally posted by JohnR7
The creator always was and always will be. He has no beginning and He has no end. He is infinite not finite.

So in other words all complex things were designed except those that were not designed???

Which is it?

Do complex things need to be designed?

If they do, and God is the most complex thing in existance than who designed God?

If on the other hand, if complexity does not always mean that something is designed, just like God is not designed, why do less complex things than God need to be designed?
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
52
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by JohnR7
The creator always was and always will be. He has no beginning and He has no end. He is infinite not finite.

Under Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) He could not exist without a designer. Nothing can if IDT is correct.

Originally posted by Stormy
You already know that we will tell you... God is Alpha and Omega!

But since you can not dispute the evidence offered on this thread

You make an attack instead on the basis of our Faith.

I'll dispute the "evidence offered" when actual evidence is offered. IDT is based on a series of logical assumptions based on obsevation, much like Evolutionary theory is.

The difference is that Evolutionary logic is sound. You may not agree with the conclusions, but it's easy to see how one could reasonably arrive at them based on the observations.

IDT logic is clearly and fatally flawed. It is hardly an "attack" to point this out.

IDT claims that complex things require a designer.

This designer (let's call him God) is a complex thing.

God did not have a designer.

Therefore, complex things do not necessarily require a designer.

Which eliminates the need for God in the first place.

IDT falls flat in the face of simple logic. But at no time was I attacking Christianity.

I think you are confusing intelligent Design Theory with the Christian faith.

I am not "attacking" Christianity, I'm refuting a scientific theory, IDT.
 
Upvote 0

lithium.

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2002
4,662
4
nowhere
✟37,536.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by Nathan Poe
Under Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) He could not exist without a designer. Nothing can if IDT is correct.



I'll dispute the "evidence offered" when actual evidence is offered. IDT is based on a series of logical assumptions based on obsevation, much like Evolutionary theory is.

The difference is that Evolutionary logic is sound. You may not agree with the conclusions, but it's easy to see how one could reasonably arrive at them based on the observations.

IDT logic is clearly and fatally flawed. It is hardly an "attack" to point this out.

IDT claims that complex things require a designer.

This designer (let's call him God) is a complex thing.

God did not have a designer.

Therefore, complex things do not necessarily require a designer.

Which eliminates the need for God in the first place.

IDT falls flat in the face of simple logic. But at no time was I attacking Christianity.

I think you are confusing intelligent Design Theory with the Christian faith.

I am not "attacking" Christianity, I'm refuting a scientific theory, IDT.

I have to agree with "e could not exist without a designer. Nothing can if IDT is correct.".
 
Upvote 0
DNAunion: Is intent required for something to be strawman?

Now, I know that if one intentionally distorts the other party's position and then knocks down that distortion, claiming to have refuted the other party by doing so, then that a strawman. But what if the person setting up the distortion is unaware that it is not an accurate depiction of the other party's position?

I bring this up because the thread-starting post may be a strawman. It claims to "refute" the materialists' position, yet does not discuss their position but rather a distortion of it.
 
Upvote 0