Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 15) Message-ID: <451@psivax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 14-May-85 17:43:43 EDT Article-I.D.: psivax.451 Posted: Tue May 14 17:43:43 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 17-May-85 04:29:12 EDT References: <353@iham1.UUCP> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen) Distribution: net Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 49 In article <353@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > > C. NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE ARE SO > COMPLEX THAT CHANCE AND EVEN BILLIONS OF YEARS CANNOT EXPLAIN > IT. > > 27. If, despite the virtually impossible odds, proteins arose > by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to > believe that they could ever form a membrane-encased, > self-reproducing, metabolizing, living cell. There is no > evidence that there are any stable states between the > assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the > formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever > advanced a testable procedure whereby this fantastic jump > in complexity could have occurred--even if the universe > were completely filled with proteins [a]. Do I really have to cite the Urey/Miller/Stanley experiments AGAIN. Not only have proteins been induced to form spontaneously in conditions simulating the ancient enveironment, but it is *easy* to do so. In fact the conditions for forming simple polypeptides are so loose it is almost inevetible that they would form. Then of course there are all the various spontaneous membrane systems that have also been demonstrated, in fact bipolar lipids *always* form closed membrane systems. > > a) Experts in this field hardly ever discuss this matter > publicly. However, the leading evolutionists in the > world know that this problem exists. For example, in > an approved transcript of a taped interview with > Dr.David Raup of the Field Museum of Natural History > in Chicago, Luther D. Sunderland commented to Dr.Raup > that ''Neither Dr. Patterson [of the British Museum of > Natural History] nor Dr. Eldredge [of the American > Museum of Natural History] could give me any > explanation of the origination of the first cell.'' > Dr. Raup replied, ''I can't either.'' > Besides being out of context, these experts are experts on the fossil record and the theory of biological evolution, *not* experts on the origin of life, which is a biochemical problem, thus they cannot really be expected to be up-to-date on the origin problem. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen