Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[Youwerecreated]

This argument fell extremely short over 10 years ago.

Many scientists would disagree with you.

Well then they would be dishonest or often they are social scientist or economists whose opinions on evolution are no more informed than grocers or construction workers. There is nothing about the flagella that we have not seen used separately. If the parts evolved separately then there is obviously no irreducible complexity.

Oh that is right, everyone who disagrees with your side, are ignorant ,and uneducated, and can't understand your absurd theory.

Many educated, who were once evolutionist no longer support the theory,because they saw the truth for themselves.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Talk origins admits it, They're on your side of the argument.

http://creationwiki.org/Macroevolution_has_never_been_observed_(Talk.Origins)

That site is ridiculous. Who can be swayed with semantics and out of context comments? Do they think god wants them to lie for him?

They quoted talk origins,you can go to talk origins and read it for yourself. Funny the admission by talk origins goes on to contradict itself by presenting 29 evidences of macro-evolution. Your side only have 29 evidences of macro-evolution ?

By the way i have read the 29 evidences of macro-evolution and their evidences was not macro-evolution. They to were adaptations or variations within a group. Nothing that proves one family can change in to a new destinct family.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, I looked up the creationist chirality argument and it is one of the silliest I have read. The way they are trying to make chirality look like a problem for evolution, pretty much looks like more evidence for evolution. They are saying that since most living things have the same chirality and in aqueous solutions you get a 50/50 racemic mixture that there must be some designer making it so. Instead of their intended goal they pretty much put me to mind that when there were self-replicating molecules, the ones with proteins of a certain chirality were more successful and hence the ancestors of life.

Here is a video that does a good job exposing the problem for evolutionists dealing with Chirality.


Evolution Debunked - YouTube!

After watching it please respond with a rebuttal.

I already told you I am not watching it. I read the argument written by the creator and explained what I thought about it. Oh and not to mention chirality isn't even a problem in chemistry anymore since William S. Knowles, Ryoji Noyori and K. Barry Sharpless' nobel prize winning work that discovered homochirality catalysts. Recently it has also been discovered that some snRNAs and snRNPs act as homochirality catalysts on proteins that are created in the wrong chirality in animals. That completely debunks this notion although reading the poorly thought out argument already debunked it for me.

Wrong.

What are you afraid of ? you were the one to say the argument was silly and rediculous critique it for me.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, I looked up the creationist chirality argument and it is one of the silliest I have read. The way they are trying to make chirality look like a problem for evolution, pretty much looks like more evidence for evolution. They are saying that since most living things have the same chirality and in aqueous solutions you get a 50/50 racemic mixture that there must be some designer making it so. Instead of their intended goal they pretty much put me to mind that when there were self-replicating molecules, the ones with proteins of a certain chirality were more successful and hence the ancestors of life.

Here is a video that does a good job exposing the problem for evolutionists dealing with Chirality.


Evolution Debunked - YouTube!

After watching it please respond with a rebuttal.

I already told you I am not watching it. I read the argument written by the creator and explained what I thought about it. Oh and not to mention chirality isn't even a problem in chemistry anymore since William S. Knowles, Ryoji Noyori and K. Barry Sharpless' nobel prize winning work that discovered homochirality catalysts. Recently it has also been discovered that some snRNAs and snRNPs act as homochirality catalysts on proteins that are created in the wrong chirality in animals. That completely debunks this notion although reading the poorly thought out argument already debunked it for me.

Really ?



Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality

by Charles McCombs, Ph.D. *

Download Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality PDF

When the newspaper headline, "Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our bodies, newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now proved life came from chemicals.

As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form, but this fact does not stop evolutionists from claiming that this experiment is proof that life came from chemicals. Evolutionists know that amino acids do not live, but they call this proof anyway because they claim that amino acids are the building blocks of life. This claim suggests that if enough building blocks are present, life would result, but this conclusion is only an assumption and has never been demonstrated. Amino acids may be the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are necessary for life, but that does not mean that amino acids are the building blocks of life. I could go to an auto parts store and buy every single part to construct a car, but that does not provide me with a functioning motor vehicle. Just as there had to be an assembler to make a moving vehicle from those auto parts, there had to be an assembler of those amino acids to make the proteins so that life could exist in our bodies.

Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino acids in those experiments proves the claim that life came from chemicals? Many have debated if this experiment validates evolution or does the evidence point to an Omnipotent Creator? For 50 years, scientists have been asking questions; for 50 years, the discussion ends in debate. Call it professional curiosity, but as a scientist, I always wondered why there are more debates on this issue than discussion of the facts. Then I realized that a discussion of the facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject of chirality. Chirality is probably one of the best scientific evidences we have against random chance evolution and chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from chemicals. Obviously, this is one fact they do not even want to discuss.

Chirality is a chemical term that means handedness. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule is called an optical isomer.

What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes.

Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L" isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality.

If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process.

However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?

Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist.

If you're in doubt as to which is correct, you are a living example of the reality of chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job; DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this earth. The reality of chirality, more than any other evidence, did more to convince me of the reality of an all-powerful Creator. I hope it will do the same for you.

I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.

There is another problem with DNA and how it works in the human body. As part of the normal replication process for DNA, an enzyme travels down the DNA strand so that a copy strand of DNA can be produced. As the enzyme reads the sequence of molecules along the strand, and if an incorrect nucleotide is detected in the strand, there is a mechanism that uses other enzymes to cut out the bad nucleotide and insert the correct one, thus repairing the DNA.

Let's look at DNA and this repair mechanism, if indeed they were formed from random chance natural processes. If the repair mechanism evolved first, what use is a repair mechanism if DNA has not evolved yet? If DNA evolved first, how would the DNA even know it would be better off with a repair mechanism? Can molecules think? DNA is not a stable chemical molecule, and without a repair mechanism, it would easily deteriorate by chemical oxidation and other processes. There is no mechanism to explain how DNA could exist for millions of years while the repair mechanism evolved. DNA would just decompose back into pond scum before the alleged billions of random chance mutations could ever form the repair mechanism.

Once we realize that design does not happen by chance, then we realize that the entire universe is not the product of a random, chance process; it is the result of an omnipotent Creator who created everything by just His Word. I hope you are beginning to see the problem. Evolution can give you a theory that might on the surface seem possible, but when true science gets involved and scientists start asking questions, the problems and false logic of the theory become apparent. This is why evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.

* Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. Organic Chemist trained in the methods of scientific investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.

Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality

 

[Woyzeck]

That is kinda funny,it's your theory and you say we are constanly evolving so why are they not becoming something new ? Fruit flies and bacteria should be showing macroevolution but they're not,why ?

Lenski's experiment with E. coli showed evidence of speciation. I've repeated this god knows how many times to you, but here it goes anyway. E. coli is an extremely common bacteria, yet it is most often brought up in cases of water or food contamination. This harmful strain is called Salmonella, and we make the distinction between the two by whether or not they can aerobically metabolize citrate. The E. coli in Lenski's (extremely long-term) experiment were the common non-harmful kind, but they evolved after thousands and thousands of generations the ability to metabolize citrate. That is, in fact, something new.

That took about ten to fifteen years and over 30,000 generations. You don't quite seem to understand that even with the fast generation turn-over rate of bacteria and fruit flies, significant macro-evolutionary change like the kind you're asking for still takes a long time. 600 generations of fruit flies sure sounds like a lot, but it only comes out to about 11,000 years for humans. As much as it sounds like it'd be enough time for macro-evolution, it's really not. It took over two billion years for life to develop beyond single-celled organisms on this planet. And then millions upon millions of years for the rest of life to develop as we know it. Anatomically modern humans only appeared about 200,000 years ago

So when you ask why haven't they evolved into something beyond flies, I'm quite puzzled. Because you don't seem to comprehend the truly vast scales of time needed to evolve into something beyond flies and bacteria.

 

[Woyzeck]

Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design - YouTube

And he's indulging in Stein's question of the possibilities of how intelligent design could explain some of the unanswered questions (like abiogenesis) in biology. He even states one of the times it's one of the possibilities of how it started. He even states that Darwinian evolution is how the alien life would have come about.

Ben Stein wasn't entirely honest when filming the bit with Dawkins. It's among the inaccuracies the film gets when trying to present it's message.

By the way, care to answer any of the other points, Meister? You had some curious notions concerning flagellum.

It was a shame that dawkins was stupid enough to get duped by Stein. What dawkins did say was in his own words and was cetainly a gotchya moment.

Actually, Stein and the makers of the documentary were never upfront about who they were or what they were making. Dawkins even stresses that what he said was one of the possibilites, and that the aliens would have had evolve according to the theory of evolution.

Stein just tries to paint him as an IDer by going "Wait... Richard Dawkins.... believes in Intelligent Design!?!?!" despite the fact that Dawkins at no points says evolution is wrong and ID is true.

Your take of the flagellum is unconvincing....sorry, you haven't even changed my mind about a 1 cell organism and it's mechanics.

It's not my take, it's the scientific response to that claim of irreducible complexity. I wasn't expecting to change your mind, I rarely expect to change a creationist's mind, but I do try to correct them on their curious ideas concerning modern science, biology in particular.

The building blocks of life with evolution just doesn't pass the litmus test with me. Your not going to be able to convince on the subject.....just as dawkins failed. There are a lot of flaws in Darwin's "theories", enough so that his studies are being questioned.

Hey, it's your right to stay ignorant of modern biology. Just don't try to pass off non-science as science, or say that science is wrong in a certain aspect, when we know it isn't.

Your trying to change in what I believe...your not going to do it.
I wasn't trying to change your mind because without knowing you...your probably an atheist. I'm not going to change that, I was just stating what I believe and give a couple of valid points on why. Good day.

No, I just don't like people bringing incorrect ideas into science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Lenski's experiment with E. coli showed evidence of speciation. I've repeated this god knows how many times to you, but here it goes anyway. E. coli is an extremely common bacteria, yet it is most often brought up in cases of water or food contamination. This harmful strain is called Salmonella, and we make the distinction between the two by whether or not they can aerobically metabolize citrate. The E. coli in Lenski's (extremely long-term) experiment were the common non-harmful kind, but they evolved after thousands and thousands of generations the ability to metabolize citrate. That is, in fact, something new.

That took about ten to fifteen years and over 30,000 generations. You don't quite seem to understand that even with the fast generation turn-over rate of bacteria and fruit flies, significant macro-evolutionary change like the kind you're asking for still takes a long time. 600 generations of fruit flies sure sounds like a lot, but it only comes out to about 11,000 years for humans. As much as it sounds like it'd be enough time for macro-evolution, it's really not. It took over two billion years for life to develop beyond single-celled organisms on this planet. And then millions upon millions of years for the rest of life to develop as we know it. Anatomically modern humans only appeared about 200,000 years ago

So when you ask why haven't they evolved into something beyond flies, I'm quite puzzled. Because you don't seem to comprehend the truly vast scales of time needed to evolve into something beyond flies and bacteria.

Ok but bacteria and flies have been around a very long time and with so many mutations and having the highest mutation rates they have only variations no macro-evolution that kinda hurts your argument that mutations cause macro-evoluition.

Puzzled ?flies and bacteria have been around much longer then many things that supposedly evolved.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And he's indulging in Stein's question of the possibilities of how intelligent design could explain some of the unanswered questions (like abiogenesis) in biology. He even states one of the times it's one of the possibilities of how it started. He even states that Darwinian evolution is how the alien life would have come about.

Ben Stein wasn't entirely honest when filming the bit with Dawkins. It's among the inaccuracies the film gets when trying to present it's message.

By the way, care to answer any of the other points, Meister? You had some curious notions concerning flagellum.

It was a shame that dawkins was stupid enough to get duped by Stein. What dawkins did say was in his own words and was cetainly a gotchya moment.

Actually, Stein and the makers of the documentary were never upfront about who they were or what they were making. Dawkins even stresses that what he said was one of the possibilites, and that the aliens would have had evolve according to the theory of evolution.

Stein just tries to paint him as an IDer by going "Wait... Richard Dawkins.... believes in Intelligent Design!?!?!" despite the fact that Dawkins at no points says evolution is wrong and ID is true.



It's not my take, it's the scientific response to that claim of irreducible complexity. I wasn't expecting to change your mind, I rarely expect to change a creationist's mind, but I do try to correct them on their curious ideas concerning modern science, biology in particular.

The building blocks of life with evolution just doesn't pass the litmus test with me. Your not going to be able to convince on the subject.....just as dawkins failed. There are a lot of flaws in Darwin's "theories", enough so that his studies are being questioned.

Hey, it's your right to stay ignorant of modern biology. Just don't try to pass off non-science as science, or say that science is wrong in a certain aspect, when we know it isn't.

Your trying to change in what I believe...your not going to do it.
I wasn't trying to change your mind because without knowing you...your probably an atheist. I'm not going to change that, I was just stating what I believe and give a couple of valid points on why. Good day.

No, I just don't like people bringing incorrect ideas into science.

You people still trying to spin dawkins comments who cares iof they were up front with him he gave an answer and you're trying to cover for him. Imagine that a hardened evolutionist admits to design but dnies that design could have been carried out by a divine creator,that really is a joke.

Bacterium Flagellum Motor my butt this was a creation of random chance.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnSxRYx82Gk&feature=related]Bacterium Flagellum Motor - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

And he's indulging in Stein's question of the possibilities of how intelligent design could explain some of the unanswered questions (like abiogenesis) in biology. He even states one of the times it's one of the possibilities of how it started. He even states that Darwinian evolution is how the alien life would have come about.

Ben Stein wasn't entirely honest when filming the bit with Dawkins. It's among the inaccuracies the film gets when trying to present it's message.

By the way, care to answer any of the other points, Meister? You had some curious notions concerning flagellum.

It was a shame that dawkins was stupid enough to get duped by Stein. What dawkins did say was in his own words and was cetainly a gotchya moment.

Actually, Stein and the makers of the documentary were never upfront about who they were or what they were making. Dawkins even stresses that what he said was one of the possibilites, and that the aliens would have had evolve according to the theory of evolution.

Stein just tries to paint him as an IDer by going "Wait... Richard Dawkins.... believes in Intelligent Design!?!?!" despite the fact that Dawkins at no points says evolution is wrong and ID is true.



It's not my take, it's the scientific response to that claim of irreducible complexity. I wasn't expecting to change your mind, I rarely expect to change a creationist's mind, but I do try to correct them on their curious ideas concerning modern science, biology in particular.

The building blocks of life with evolution just doesn't pass the litmus test with me. Your not going to be able to convince on the subject.....just as dawkins failed. There are a lot of flaws in Darwin's "theories", enough so that his studies are being questioned.

Hey, it's your right to stay ignorant of modern biology. Just don't try to pass off non-science as science, or say that science is wrong in a certain aspect, when we know it isn't.

Your trying to change in what I believe...your not going to do it.
I wasn't trying to change your mind because without knowing you...your probably an atheist. I'm not going to change that, I was just stating what I believe and give a couple of valid points on why. Good day.

No, I just don't like people bringing incorrect ideas into science.

If you don't like incorrect ideas in science you might want to clean up evolutionist ideas.

 

[FurthurBB]

Even though you are just being silly now, why would bacteria at this point evolve into an already filled niche when they have very successful niches of their own?

All things are supposedly evolving right and mutations cause change according to your theory,why do
not single celled organism and bacteria not change in to anything new ? I'm being silly,you are avoiding a legitimate question,why ?


Bacteria Mutate Much More Than Previously Thought.

Bacteria Mutate Much More Than Previously Thought

So again why do they not ebolve ?

I am actually not avoiding any question, since I already answered it. Bacteria are very successful, there are very few new niches to be filled. That = no selective pressure. Which is what I said before.

 

[FurthurBB]

Many scientists would disagree with you.

Well then they would be dishonest or often they are social scientist or economists whose opinions on evolution are no more informed than grocers or construction workers. There is nothing about the flagella that we have not seen used separately. If the parts evolved separately then there is obviously no irreducible complexity.

Oh that is right, everyone who disagrees with your side, are ignorant ,and uneducated, and can't understand your absurd theory.

Many educated, who were once evolutionist no longer support the theory,because they saw the truth for themselves.

over 99% of biologist believe in evolution. Now, don't get angry and start posting nonsense. I never said anyone was uneducated, just unqualified. Would you let me take out your appendix? What about give you a heart transplant? I am not uneducated, I have 6 degrees and three of them are advanced, but I am unqualified to perform surgery on living people.

 

[FurthurBB]

That site is ridiculous. Who can be swayed with semantics and out of context comments? Do they think god wants them to lie for him?

They quoted talk origins,you can go to talk origins and read it for yourself. Funny the admission by talk origins goes on to contradict itself by presenting 29 evidences of macro-evolution. Your side only have 29 evidences of macro-evolution ?

By the way i have read the 29 evidences of macro-evolution and their evidences was not macro-evolution. They to were adaptations or variations within a group. Nothing that proves one family can change in to a new destinct family.

There are more than 29 evidences of macroevolution, and what they said was exactly the truth. If a frog spontaneously changed into a bird that would be supernatural and have nothing to do with the theory of evolution at all let alone macroevoltion.

 

[FurthurBB]

Here is a video that does a good job exposing the problem for evolutionists dealing with Chirality.


Evolution Debunked - YouTube!

After watching it please respond with a rebuttal.

I already told you I am not watching it. I read the argument written by the creator and explained what I thought about it. Oh and not to mention chirality isn't even a problem in chemistry anymore since William S. Knowles, Ryoji Noyori and K. Barry Sharpless' nobel prize winning work that discovered homochirality catalysts. Recently it has also been discovered that some snRNAs and snRNPs act as homochirality catalysts on proteins that are created in the wrong chirality in animals. That completely debunks this notion although reading the poorly thought out argument already debunked it for me.

Wrong.

What are you afraid of ? you were the one to say the argument was silly and rediculous critique it for me.

Obviously not afraid since I already read the argument from the person who created it, as I have said and told you it is poorly written, ridiculous and then showed you why, even if it was well thought out, that argument has been completely debunked.

 

[FurthurBB]

Here is a video that does a good job exposing the problem for evolutionists dealing with Chirality.


Evolution Debunked - YouTube!

After watching it please respond with a rebuttal.

I already told you I am not watching it. I read the argument written by the creator and explained what I thought about it. Oh and not to mention chirality isn't even a problem in chemistry anymore since William S. Knowles, Ryoji Noyori and K. Barry Sharpless' nobel prize winning work that discovered homochirality catalysts. Recently it has also been discovered that some snRNAs and snRNPs act as homochirality catalysts on proteins that are created in the wrong chirality in animals. That completely debunks this notion although reading the poorly thought out argument already debunked it for me.

Really ?



Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality

by Charles McCombs, Ph.D. *

Download Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality PDF

When the newspaper headline, "Life in a Test-tube," appeared in 1953, the evolutionary community became very excited because they viewed the work of Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as scientific proof that life could have been formed from chemicals by random chance natural processes. In that classic experiment, Miller and Urey combined a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor and passed the mixture through an electric discharge to simulate lightning. At the end of the experiment, the products were found to contain a few amino acids. Since amino acids are the individual links of long chain polymers called proteins, and proteins are important in our bodies, newspapers quickly reported there was laboratory evidence that now proved life came from chemicals.

As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never formed in that experiment. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday chemicals that do not "live." Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form, but this fact does not stop evolutionists from claiming that this experiment is proof that life came from chemicals. Evolutionists know that amino acids do not live, but they call this proof anyway because they claim that amino acids are the building blocks of life. This claim suggests that if enough building blocks are present, life would result, but this conclusion is only an assumption and has never been demonstrated. Amino acids may be the building blocks of proteins, and proteins are necessary for life, but that does not mean that amino acids are the building blocks of life. I could go to an auto parts store and buy every single part to construct a car, but that does not provide me with a functioning motor vehicle. Just as there had to be an assembler to make a moving vehicle from those auto parts, there had to be an assembler of those amino acids to make the proteins so that life could exist in our bodies.

Ever since 1953, scientists have been asking if the formation of amino acids in those experiments proves the claim that life came from chemicals? Many have debated if this experiment validates evolution or does the evidence point to an Omnipotent Creator? For 50 years, scientists have been asking questions; for 50 years, the discussion ends in debate. Call it professional curiosity, but as a scientist, I always wondered why there are more debates on this issue than discussion of the facts. Then I realized that a discussion of the facts would inevitably lead to a discussion of the subject of chirality. Chirality is probably one of the best scientific evidences we have against random chance evolution and chirality totally destroys the claim that life came from chemicals. Obviously, this is one fact they do not even want to discuss.

Chirality is a chemical term that means handedness. Although two chemical molecules may appear to have the same elements and similar properties, they can still have different structures. When two molecules appear identical and their structures differ only by being mirror images of each other, those molecules are said to have chirality. Your left and right hands illustrate chirality. Your hands may appear to be identical, but in reality, they are only mirror images of each other, hence the term handedness. For this reason, chirality can exist as a right-handed or a left-handed molecule, and each individual molecule is called an optical isomer.

What is the problem of chirality? In our bodies, proteins and DNA possess a unique 3-dimensional shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the unique shape for proteins and DNA, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left-handed chirality. Although Miller and Urey formed amino acids in their experiments, all the amino acids that formed lacked chirality. It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process. When a random chemical reaction is used to prepare molecules having chirality, there is an equal opportunity to prepare the left-handed isomer as well as the right-handed isomer. It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes.

Let's look at chirality in proteins and DNA. Proteins are polymers of amino acids and each one of the component amino acids exists as the "L" or left-handed optical isomer. Even though the "R" or right-handed optical isomers can be synthesized in the lab, this isomer does not exist in natural proteins. The DNA molecule is made up of billions of complicated chemical molecules called nucleotides, and these nucleotide molecules exist as the "R" or right-handed optical isomer. The "L" isomer of nucleotides can be prepared in the lab, but they do not exist in natural DNA. There is no way that a random chance process could have formed these proteins and DNA with their unique chirality.

If proteins and DNA were formed by chance, each and every one of the components would be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. This is not what we see in natural proteins or in natural DNA. How can a random chance natural process create proteins with thousands of "L" molecules, and then also create DNA with billions of "R" molecules? Does this sound like random chance or a product of design? Even if there were a magic process to introduce chirality, it would only create one isomer. If such a process existed, we do not know anything about it or how it would work. If it did exist, how were compounds with the other chirality ever formed? Even if there were two magical processes, one for each isomer, what determined which process was used and when it was used, if this was a random chance natural process? The idea of two processes requires a controlling mechanism, and this kind of control is not possible in a random chance natural process.

However, the problem with chirality goes even deeper. As nucleotide molecules come together to form the structure of DNA, they develop a twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA. DNA develops a twist in the chain because each component contains chirality or handedness. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly. The entire replication process would be derailed like a train on bad railroad tracks. In order for DNA evolution to work, billions of molecules within our body would have to be generated with the "R" configuration all at the same time, without error. If it is impossible for one nucleotide to be formed with chirality, how much less likely would it be for billions of nucleotides to come together exactly at the same time, and all of them be formed with the same chirality? If evolution cannot provide a mechanism that forms one product with chirality, how can it explain the formation of two products of opposite chirality?

Chirality is not just a major problem for evolution; it is a dilemma. According to evolution, natural processes must explain everything over long periods of time. However, the process that forms chirality cannot be explained by natural science in any amount of time. That is the dilemma, either natural processes cannot explain everything, or chirality doesn't exist.

If you're in doubt as to which is correct, you are a living example of the reality of chirality. Without chirality, proteins and enzymes could not do their job; DNA could not function at all. Without properly functioning proteins and DNA, there would be no life on this earth. The reality of chirality, more than any other evidence, did more to convince me of the reality of an all-powerful Creator. I hope it will do the same for you.

I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.

There is another problem with DNA and how it works in the human body. As part of the normal replication process for DNA, an enzyme travels down the DNA strand so that a copy strand of DNA can be produced. As the enzyme reads the sequence of molecules along the strand, and if an incorrect nucleotide is detected in the strand, there is a mechanism that uses other enzymes to cut out the bad nucleotide and insert the correct one, thus repairing the DNA.

Let's look at DNA and this repair mechanism, if indeed they were formed from random chance natural processes. If the repair mechanism evolved first, what use is a repair mechanism if DNA has not evolved yet? If DNA evolved first, how would the DNA even know it would be better off with a repair mechanism? Can molecules think? DNA is not a stable chemical molecule, and without a repair mechanism, it would easily deteriorate by chemical oxidation and other processes. There is no mechanism to explain how DNA could exist for millions of years while the repair mechanism evolved. DNA would just decompose back into pond scum before the alleged billions of random chance mutations could ever form the repair mechanism.

Once we realize that design does not happen by chance, then we realize that the entire universe is not the product of a random, chance process; it is the result of an omnipotent Creator who created everything by just His Word. I hope you are beginning to see the problem. Evolution can give you a theory that might on the surface seem possible, but when true science gets involved and scientists start asking questions, the problems and false logic of the theory become apparent. This is why evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.

* Dr. Charles McCombs is a Ph.D. Organic Chemist trained in the methods of scientific investigation, and a scientist who has 20 chemical patents.

Evolution Hopes You Don't Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality

Yeah, already read that and since it has already been debunked by chemists and biologists, why keep repeating it?

 

[FurthurBB]

Lenski's experiment with E. coli showed evidence of speciation. I've repeated this god knows how many times to you, but here it goes anyway. E. coli is an extremely common bacteria, yet it is most often brought up in cases of water or food contamination. This harmful strain is called Salmonella, and we make the distinction between the two by whether or not they can aerobically metabolize citrate. The E. coli in Lenski's (extremely long-term) experiment were the common non-harmful kind, but they evolved after thousands and thousands of generations the ability to metabolize citrate. That is, in fact, something new.

That took about ten to fifteen years and over 30,000 generations. You don't quite seem to understand that even with the fast generation turn-over rate of bacteria and fruit flies, significant macro-evolutionary change like the kind you're asking for still takes a long time. 600 generations of fruit flies sure sounds like a lot, but it only comes out to about 11,000 years for humans. As much as it sounds like it'd be enough time for macro-evolution, it's really not. It took over two billion years for life to develop beyond single-celled organisms on this planet. And then millions upon millions of years for the rest of life to develop as we know it. Anatomically modern humans only appeared about 200,000 years ago

So when you ask why haven't they evolved into something beyond flies, I'm quite puzzled. Because you don't seem to comprehend the truly vast scales of time needed to evolve into something beyond flies and bacteria.

Okay, Salmonella is a bacteria closely related to E. coli and there are many strains of E. coli that cause infection Salmonella - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Escherichia coli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The reason this is important, as opposed to all of those who tossed this aside, is because societal leaders should be using evidence based information to lead. Not faith. Unless you like communism. Or nazi zombies.

And yes, people who are educated on the matter tend to see those who don't understand the topic or those who propagate bad information as uneducated. It's basically the definition of uneducated. The only response such uneducated people have is playing the victim card, saying they don't like being called ignorant, even though they are, and that anyone who would dare call them such is elitist. That'll show those edjumacated people!

 

[FurthurBB]

It was a shame that dawkins was stupid enough to get duped by Stein. What dawkins did say was in his own words and was cetainly a gotchya moment.

Actually, Stein and the makers of the documentary were never upfront about who they were or what they were making. Dawkins even stresses that what he said was one of the possibilites, and that the aliens would have had evolve according to the theory of evolution.

Stein just tries to paint him as an IDer by going "Wait... Richard Dawkins.... believes in Intelligent Design!?!?!" despite the fact that Dawkins at no points says evolution is wrong and ID is true.



It's not my take, it's the scientific response to that claim of irreducible complexity. I wasn't expecting to change your mind, I rarely expect to change a creationist's mind, but I do try to correct them on their curious ideas concerning modern science, biology in particular.



Hey, it's your right to stay ignorant of modern biology. Just don't try to pass off non-science as science, or say that science is wrong in a certain aspect, when we know it isn't.

Your trying to change in what I believe...your not going to do it.
I wasn't trying to change your mind because without knowing you...your probably an atheist. I'm not going to change that, I was just stating what I believe and give a couple of valid points on why. Good day.

No, I just don't like people bringing incorrect ideas into science.

You people still trying to spin dawkins comments who cares iof they were up front with him he gave an answer and you're trying to cover for him. Imagine that a hardened evolutionist admits to design but dnies that design could have been carried out by a divine creator,that really is a joke.

Bacterium Flagellum Motor my butt this was a creation of random chance.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnSxRYx82Gk&feature=related]Bacterium Flagellum Motor - YouTube[/ame]

Do you watch youtube videos for your science all the time? Why do you keep choosing arguments that have already been debunked? The flagella one was proven false in a court of law.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Actually, Stein and the makers of the documentary were never upfront about who they were or what they were making. Dawkins even stresses that what he said was one of the possibilites, and that the aliens would have had evolve according to the theory of evolution.

Stein just tries to paint him as an IDer by going "Wait... Richard Dawkins.... believes in Intelligent Design!?!?!" despite the fact that Dawkins at no points says evolution is wrong and ID is true.



It's not my take, it's the scientific response to that claim of irreducible complexity. I wasn't expecting to change your mind, I rarely expect to change a creationist's mind, but I do try to correct them on their curious ideas concerning modern science, biology in particular.



Hey, it's your right to stay ignorant of modern biology. Just don't try to pass off non-science as science, or say that science is wrong in a certain aspect, when we know it isn't.



No, I just don't like people bringing incorrect ideas into science.

You people still trying to spin dawkins comments who cares iof they were up front with him he gave an answer and you're trying to cover for him. Imagine that a hardened evolutionist admits to design but dnies that design could have been carried out by a divine creator,that really is a joke.

Bacterium Flagellum Motor my butt this was a creation of random chance.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnSxRYx82Gk&feature=related]Bacterium Flagellum Motor - YouTube[/ame]

Do you watch youtube videos for your science all the time? Why do you keep choosing arguments that have already been debunked? The flagella one was proven false in a court of law.

Since having a stroke, I don't get to do what I use to do, so I read a lot and watch videos and support my beloved Arizona Cardinals. Oh and ride the mountain bike daily whether I need it or not.

For your information ,someone offering an explanation is not debunking a problem for your theory. It's an opinion and nothing more it sure was not proven wrong by evidence. Do you expect evolutionists to just dismiss their theory that only natural processes are responsible for all living things and accept what a creationist said ? get real, all along evolutionist have looked the other way when intelligence is introduced to the theory. Even though they feel that there were no way a random chance non-intelligent process created some of the things observed.

Will you explain how the Bacterium Flagellum Motor evolved ?

While you're at it ,can you explain how the giraffes neck,blood vessels that open and close so the giraffe don't blow it's brains out when it bends to get a drink of water,and the sponge in the brain that holds oxygenated blood so when the giraffe sunddenly raises his head he don't pass out and become a meal to predators,how did they all evolve over time ?

If none of those abilities were present the giraffe would no longer be with us but be extinct.

 

[Youwerecreated]

All things are supposedly evolving right and mutations cause change according to your theory,why do
not single celled organism and bacteria not change in to anything new ? I'm being silly,you are avoiding a legitimate question,why ?


Bacteria Mutate Much More Than Previously Thought.

Bacteria Mutate Much More Than Previously Thought

So again why do they not ebolve ?

I am actually not avoiding any question, since I already answered it. Bacteria are very successful, there are very few new niches to be filled. That = no selective pressure. Which is what I said before.

That is a very poor answer considering all things are always evolving according to evolutionist.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well then they would be dishonest or often they are social scientist or economists whose opinions on evolution are no more informed than grocers or construction workers. There is nothing about the flagella that we have not seen used separately. If the parts evolved separately then there is obviously no irreducible complexity.

Oh that is right, everyone who disagrees with your side, are ignorant ,and uneducated, and can't understand your absurd theory.

Many educated, who were once evolutionist no longer support the theory,because they saw the truth for themselves.

over 99% of biologist believe in evolution. Now, don't get angry and start posting nonsense. I never said anyone was uneducated, just unqualified. Would you let me take out your appendix? What about give you a heart transplant? I am not uneducated, I have 6 degrees and three of them are advanced, but I am unqualified to perform surgery on living people.

Really ?creationist that hold degrees in molecular biology and genetics ,and chemistry are not qualified to disagree with evolutionist ?