Reply to Dr. Andrew Loke

Sent to the ST Forum:

Dear Forum Editor,

Evolution a fact, not fiction

In contrast to Dr. Loke’s assertion that evolution is not a fact, I counter that it would be highly irresponsible if any scientific program or curriculum fails to reinforce this foundation truth of modern biology.

Dr. Loke calls evolution highly debatable. In truth, only a tiny, vocal minority of theistically-motivated researchers (especially those linked to the Discovery Institute) dispute the fact of evolution, and so far have failed to offer credible alternatives as well as ignored the manifold refutations of their so-called problems with evolution such as ‘irreducible complexity’.

Contrary to his claim that ‘gaps’ in the fossil record disprove evolution, the fossil record, even with its meagre volume given the sheer age of the earth and geological changes, already demonstrates the way phyla have evolved and the diversified paths of species radiation over time. The emergence of mammals and birds from reptilian ancestors (including the relict evidence of egg-bearing mammals and marsupials in isolated Australia), the uncanny morphological and biochemical homologies and atavisms within phyla, as well as the increasingly well-documented journey from ape to early man offer substantiated arguments for the veracity of evolution. Evolutionary biologists may dispute the rate at which evolution takes place, but no serious researcher (despite claims by creationists to the contrary) doubts the phenotypic roads enshrined in fossil beds and corroborated by prevailing observations of ecology, biogeography and species distribution around the world.

The only point that may be conceded is the ultimate origin of life and its genetic transmission system itself. Various hypotheses exist as to how this occurred, but to resort to using theological claims to answer the question is both unscientific and self-defeating, for such claims are unprovable and there is no reason why scientists should be prevented from exploring the question rather than accepting doctrinal fiat and stopping at that.

The sad case is that many false avenues (e.g. the Piltdown Man) that evolutionary biologists have clearly rejected without these instances casting doubt on evolution itself are still cited by writers such as Dr. Well as strawmen to convince fellow creationists.   

The Discovery Institute claims a ‘mere’ hundred signatures supporting its claim. In response, the US National Center for Science Education has received at least 600 signatories for its Project Steve that garners support for evolution only from scientists named “Steve.” Furthermore, the Discovery Institute’s list posits a misleading claim, as the belief that natural selection and random selection are insufficient to explain evolution does not necessarily imply that one supports the creationist version of origins.

Readers who wish to find out more about the debate, as well as responses to Denton and Behe, can check the following websites:

http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

www.pandasthumb.org

In short, whereas evolution is a matter of fact, the notion of divine creation is a matter of faith, and when has faith ever required evidence, since it is by definition a belief that defies the need for proof?

- - - - - - - -

Man's evolution from monkey a proven scientific fact? No, it's not

I watched the show 'A Species Odyssey' on Channel NewsAsia on November 6 and was very concerned with the way the highly debatable theory of human evolution was presented as a fact.

While micro-evolution, ie the process of mutation and natural selection, can be observed in nature and is a proven fact, macro-evolution - the theory that all the organisms we see today resulted from the micro-evolution of simpler pre-existing organisms, which ultimately came from non-living matter - is not a proven fact.

It is in fact contradicted by huge gaps in the fossil records as well as other theoretical considerations (see www.answersingenesis.org).

Because of the evidence and theoretical considerations, many scientists have now repudiated the theory of macro-evolution (see, for example www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf), and the number is increasing despite the 'persecutions' by scientific establishments wishing to maintian their unwarranted naturalistic philosophy. (See Dr Jonathan Well's The Icons of Evolution, chapter 12).

We must note carefully that micro-evolution does not necessarily imply macro-evolution. Micro-evolution only implies that given enough time, living things may change as they adapt to the environment. For example, given enough time, apes may change.

But micro-evolution does not necessarily imply that all the living organisms that we see today originates from pre-existing organisms. For example, to say that apes may change given enough time does not necessarily imply that man did come from apes. Above all, micro-evolution does not explain how the RNA/DNA comes about in the first place. (See www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/TJ/docs/tjv10n3_origin_life.pdf).

Paleontologists often construct the supposed intermediates between monkeys and humans with much imagination and subjectivity which resemble myth-writing. (See The Icons of Evolution, chapter 11). Many such constructions have in fact been proven false (eg the Piltdown man which deceived scientists from early 1900s to 1953), while the remaining ones are highly debatable (see www.answersingenesis.org).

People should not be given the idea that evolution from monkey to man is a proven fact of science when it is not and the media should not just present one side of the story without presenting the evidence and theoretical considerations that contradict it.

While many books showing the fallacy of macro-evolution can now be found in bookshops and the National Library in Singapore (eg Dr Michael Denton's Evolution, a theory in crisis, Dr Michael Behe's Darwin's Black box), documentaries showing the fallacy of macro-evolution should also be shown on TV to let the public know the truth about our origin.

Andrew Loke Ter Ern (Dr)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

The ST rejected my letter. Other online responses are here and here.

Comments

[Agagooga]

Do tell us if it's approved.

[budak]

ST just sent me the rejection letter. But if it's because someone else made a better case than me, I am happy.

[noself]

Gabriel, are you going to post your letter to your blog? I don't have a response from ST yet whatever that might mean.

[ivan]

Seriously?

Good grief, they publish a trainee medical officer like Andrew Loke's dribble and reject yours?

Now you know why I don't post articles from ST.

[Agagooga]

Shaun's letter got published, as did someone else's. I didn't write one - attempting to study for exams lah ;)

[Andrew Loke]

Evolution a fact, not fiction

Dear "Budak " ,

I read your letter " Reply to Dr Andrew Loke " on the web a few days ago . This is my reply .

You mentioned " Dr. Loke calls evolution highly debatable. In truth, only a tiny, vocal minority of theistically-motivated researchers (especially those linked to the Discovery Institute) dispute the fact of evolution. " I wonder what Dr Michael Denton would think of this , since he is an agnostic , and certainly not theistically motivated .

You wrote " Furthermore, the Discovery Institute’s list posits a misleading claim, as the belief that natural selection and random selection are insufficient to explain evolution does not necessarily imply that one supports the creationist version of origins." Now nowhere in the list of 100 scientists was it claimed that doubt concerning Darwinism imply support for creationism , so your accusation that the list posit a misleading claim is false. Also , my citation of the list in my letter was just to show that macro-evolution is not a proven fact of science , and that not all prominent scientists believe in macro-evolution . I did not claim that all those scientist support creationism .Indeed , the list of 100 scientists who doubted macro-evolution refute your claim that "no serious researcher (despite claims by creationists to the contrary) doubts the phenotypic roads enshrined in fossil beds and corroborated by prevailing observations of ecology, biogeography and species distribution around the world " .

You wrote " In response, the US National Center for Science Education has received at least 600 signatories for its Project Steve that garners support for evolution only from scientists named “Steve.” But the point is , numbers don't matter in a scientific debate but strength of theories and evidence do . After all , many scientific theories which we accepted nowadays started off as the view of a minority .

You wrote that the intelligent design advocates have " ignored the manifold refutations of their so-called problems with evolution such as ‘irreducible complexity’. " This is simply not true as many of them have actually published articles that refute those " refutations " . You can check out the book " Debating Design ", published by the Cambridge University Press in 2004 for some examples of these . You suggested the websites http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html and www.pandasthumb.org, but I have visited these websites before and find the arguments there unconvincing .

You wrote " Contrary to his claim that ‘gaps’ in the fossil record disprove evolution, the fossil record, even with its meagre volume given the sheer age of the earth and geological changes, already demonstrates the way phyla have evolved and the diversified paths of species radiation over time. The emergence of mammals and birds from reptilian ancestors (including the relict evidence of egg-bearing mammals and marsupials in isolated Australia), the uncanny morphological and biochemical homologies and atavisms within phyla " But I want to point out to you the " Cambrian explosion " , which refers to the geological sudden appearance of many new body plans supposedly " 530 million years ago " . At this time , at least 19 and perhaps as many as 35 of the 40 total phyla made their first appearance on earth . In almost all cases , the Cambrian animals have no clear morphological antecendants .

You wrote " The sad case is that many false avenues (e.g. the Piltdown Man) that evolutionary biologists have clearly rejected without these instances casting doubt on evolution itself are still cited by writers such as Dr. Well as strawmen to convince fellow creationists " Now I did not attack the Piltdown man and claiming that the present day evolutionary biologist still believe in the Piltdown man ,so therefore it is not a strawman argument. My citation of the Piltdown man was for the fact that so many scientists in the past did accepted and believed that the Piltdown Man was true , and they wrote 500+ books about it. In the end it is all proven to be a hoax. This should caution us in accepting what pro-evolutionists claim to be facts for their fossil records .

You wrote " the increasingly well-documented journey from ape to early man offer substantiated arguments for the veracity of evolution" . However , the views and sources which I cited in my letter show that the links between apes and humans are not convincing at all. And those sources do contain the opinion of paleoanthropologists , people specialising in the study of fossils, a field which form the basis for evolutionary biology .And paleoanthropologists themselves have admitted that their work in their field is highly subjective . For example , paleoanthropologist Misia Landau wrote that "many classic texts in the field were determined as much by traditional narrative frameworks as by material evidence " and that the themes " far exceed what can be studied from the fossils alone." (Narratives of Human Evolution ) . With regards to forming the narratives of evolution from fossils , paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall admitted that the process is "both political and subjective " such that " paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of science ". And evolutionary biologist Clark Howell had conceded that " There is no encompassing theory of human evolution...Alas,there never really has been." (" Paleoanthropology and Preconception " Meike et.al Contemporary issues in human evolution Memoir 21.) .

You wrote " The only point that may be conceded is the ultimate origin of life and its genetic transmission system itself. Various hypotheses exist as to how this occurred, but to resort to using theological claims to answer the question is both unscientific and self-defeating, for such claims are unprovable . "

Now I want to remind you that the claim of macro-evolution is also "unprovable" in the same sense the " intelligent designer " explaination is " unprovable " . Both explanations concern about an event that happened in the past , and therefore neither can be proven by experiments . Nevertheless, the view of " intelligent design " belongs to exactly the same branch of scienfic inquiry as the theory of naturalistic macro-evolution . We must note here that the issue does not lie within the branch of experimental science, because neither the macro-evolutionist explanation nor the Creationist explanation of what happened in the past can be confirmed in a lab. The conflict between naturalistic macro-evolution and creationism legitimately lies within the branch of science which operates on principles similar to FORENSIC science . It is not " science versus religion " , as many suppose, but rather which explanation for an event that has happened in the past is more probable .We are like detectives coming to the scene , looking at the life we see now and asking ourselves " which explanation is more reasonable ? " Did life comes from non- life naturalistically ? Did man come from apes ? " " Science" , says Linus Pauling , " is the search for the truth , " and we are concerned about the truth here . And the truth of the matter is that intelligence as a causal agency for life and man should not be ruled out a priori . In fact it should at least be considered as a possibility , as the principles of forensic science clearly recognises events caused by intelligence apart from events caused naturalistically . And that is how murders are determined apart from naturalistic accidents. And just as a forensic scientist will reasonably believe that a code found on the wall to be caused by an intelligent agency , it is more reasonable to believe that the origin of the first genetic code is caused by an intelligence rather than by naturalistic processes . No doubt the explanation that the causal agency for life and man is an intelligent agency will have religious connotations , but this connotation does not imply that the explanation itself is not true .

The process from molecules to life to simple organisms to apes to man is so complex that scientists had postulated that millions of years is necessary for even the most basic DNA and RNA to form . And the protective environment of the modern day laboratory was obviously not available for the first life to form naturalistically. Indeed , unpredictable destructive forces can happen all the time in the harsh ,unprotected natural environment. A volcano eruption , for example , would have instantaneously wipe out all traces of life in the " warm little pond " which had painstakingly taken millions of years to form. And somehow all the steps along the process from molecules to man must be protected from destructive forces and many possible detrimental chemical reactions , for millions of years ! Is it reasonable to believe that all these had happened naturalistically ?

An observation of the complexity of life and a reflection on how it can originate is indeed inconsistent with naturalistic explanations . Even one of the leading atheists and naturalist in the world, Anthony Flew, while still a non -Christian because of his misconceptions about Christianity, has now repudiated his long-cherished atheism as he now believed that an intelligence must have been involved in the origin of life , because that is the only explanation that is consistent with observation . As Plato had said , " We must follow where the evidence leads " .

Finally, you wrote " In short, whereas evolution is a matter of fact, the notion of divine creation is a matter of faith, and when has faith ever required evidence, since it is by definition a belief that defies the need for proof? " This is certainly erroneous theologically. The Bible states " For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse -- Romans 1 :20 . What this verse clearly means is that the proof for God can be seen in what has been created , so that man has no reasonable excuse for not believing in Him. So true faith in the Christian context is based on proof .

[noself]

Yoz to Budak, I've got (nearly) the same spiel from the good doctor. Want to write a response together?

[Hai~Ren]

I dropped an email to Pharyngula. Wonder if PZ Myers will join the fray.

[mrs budak]

budak is in Paris right now and will return only on Saturday. He may or may not have access to the internet. I had to delete Andrew Loke's multiple posts for him. I'm sure he has something to say, so do wait patiently!

[noself]

Multiple posts?

Oh wow...PZ Myers, but isn't it kinda well basic for him?

[ivan]

Seriously, you guys are going to respond?

Andrew's logic is so flawed that he may have a hard time listening.

For instance, the last paragraph is circular reasoning, i.e. God created the universe, therefore we must believe in him (that he created the universe).

It is not proof, it is dogma. A seriously flawed one at that.

Also the very fact that that the piltdown man was discovered to be a hoax shows science's greatest strengths.

Unfortunately, Andrew is trying to position it as a weakness.

A more elegant response would be to direct Andrew's attention to this article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html

Besides, the Vatican's Chief Astronomer has already said that creationistic views have no place in science:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051119/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_evolution

[noself]

Yeah, I responded. I figured it was a good way to fill the emptiness of the end of my examinations.

[Andrew Loke]

Dear Ivan ,

You wrote " For instance, the last paragraph is circular reasoning, i.e. God created the universe, therefore we must believe in him (that he created the universe)."

* The context of that paragraph was to refute Budak's claim that faith is " by definition a belief that defies the need for proof " . I then showed him this is not how the Bible defined faith . I then quoted Romans 1 :20 , which shows that the Bible explained faith as something which man has no excuse , ie all man ought to believe that He exist . Why ? Because the proof for His existence can be seen in the things around us ( the complexity of life , for example ) . Faith therefore is based on proof in the Christian context .

It should be clear from the context of the last paragraph that I was not offering a proof for the existence of God there , but merely to explain that Budak's notion that " when has faith ever required evidence " is wrong . Your charge that I use circular reasoning ( God created the universe, therefore we must believe in him (that he created the universe) ) is therefore total misrepresentation due to your failure to read properly the argument and the Bible verse in context .

You wrote "Also the very fact that that the piltdown man was discovered to be a hoax shows science's greatest strengths.Unfortunately, Andrew is trying to position it as a weakness. "

* The point I want to highlight was that PRIOR to the discovery that the Piltdown man was a hoax it WAS hailed as the link by scientists and evolutionists . The hailing of the Pildown man as a link was a FACT of history. Many scientists and evolutionists did proclaim that it was a link and they wrote 500 + books on it .So we SHOULD be cautious about what are the fossils that are proclaimed as links now , especially in light of the fact that these " links" have plenty of characteristics which made them unconvincing ( see the Answers in genesis link , previously quoted ) and people in the field of paleoanthropology have admitted that the evolutionary naratives " far exceed what can be studied from the fossils alone," for example. This is to be expected considering that they are dealing with evidence that is supposedly millions of years old.

You statement that" Andrew's logic is so flawed that he may have a hard time listening " is therefore totally unjustified .

As for your " more elegant response ", http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html , I want respond firstly by saying that I am not a Catholic , and I do not submit to the authority of those who believe that the Bible is the word of God according to their Catechism yet deny that God has the ability to communicate to man correctly factual issues such as historical facts. These people say that the Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation but “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.” However, if the Bible can be false with regards to historical facts , then how can we be sure that it is not false with regards to salvation , heaven and hell , for example ? Their position is self -defeating .

The claim that the first 11 chapters of Genesis contains contradictions is fallacious . If you don't believe , you can try to point out to me where is the contradiction . You can ask those Catholic bishops to help you if you want. The similarity of the Genesis accounts to other creation accounts from other cultures could be accounted for by the fact that the other cultures could have got their accounts from their ancestors , who got it from Noah , the common ancestor of all humans after the flood . The bishops say that primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing, but if the history is false then there is no religious teaching value either , because the main religious teaching in those chapters was to trust in God who acts in the affairs of man in history . So the views of these self-defeating people are worthless theologically.

I don't see Christian fundamentalism as dangerous , since the Bible tells us literally to love everyone in the world .

I can't get through to this link , http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051119/ap_on_re_euA/ , but I think I have enough of such self defeating comments .

[Andrew Loke]

Dear Budak ,

I have written a reply to noself's reply on 1/12/05 which is posted at his blog . You might want to read through it to prevent repeating his arguments in your reply .

[noself]

Budak, please feel free to repeat them. There isn't a real response because of his 'anti-natural bias' (as opposed to my 'anti-supernatural' one).

I mean who cares if Science limits itself to the natural and material because the supernatural is not testable right?

[noself]

And yes, how COULD there be contradictions when there is an omnipotent god? Religion is unfalsifiable, that's why it's not science.

[monkey]

poor budak
so many people talking to him when he's not even here
geez

[yh]

Andrew Loke,

in science, theories that best explain experiment results and physical observations are adopted. So unless you can come up with an alternative theory that can match the rigour of the theory of evolution, it will continue to be taught in school.

Quantum mechanics and relativity are widely known to be at loggerheads. With whatever knowledge we have, both cannot be correct at the same time. Should we stop teaching these in schools as well? Let's just declare that god controls the behaviour of all subatomic particles and call it a day.

Where do we stop? Should we even teach newtonian physics? Suggesting that even god has to play within the rules of the physical world? What blasphemy!

How many of your 100 scientists work on biology-related science?

'numbers don't matter in a scientific debate but strength of theories and evidence do'

What is your theory? What evidence support your theory? I don't know which area of science you work in. But i challenge you to submit a paper to a top biology journal explaining your theory and documenting your evidence. i'm sure you will have no problem with the peer review process since so many top scientists agree with you that the theory of evolution is weak.

[noself]

yh: Don't bother, I'm still waiting for a reply on what he actually believes in. Thus far, it's some weird conflation of Youth Earth Creationism and ID.

Physician: Could we at least get the terminology right? Fundamentalism does not mean adhering to the 'Fundamentals' of a particular faith. If that were all than Christianity can simply be reduced to its very definition of a belief in a ressuracted Christ in return for forgiveness of Original Sin (talk about being burdened with something that was not your fault).

Fundamentalism is mroe properly defined as a person who adopts within a tradition, a particularly narrow view and seeks to impose that view to the exclusion of all other aspects of the tradition (Glenn on Comparative Legal Traditions). That's why fundamentalism is dangerous, because of its intolerance.

[budak]

It's funny that arguments stemming from the ID school (which claims to be old earth – meaning already a less than literal reading of Genesis) are embraced by believers who are happy to suspend old objections simply to score a point. Taken to its logical end, ID could well be inimical to evangelical Christianity in both its (oft unspoken) assumption of old earth timelines as well as its refusal to make explicit its ideological ties with right wing bible thumpers (thus leaving the arena open for any other deity).

Please pardon my temporal lassitude. Jetlag and an excess of cognac/wine make for neural stupor. Even my duck isn't working.

[noself]

It's a 'big tent' after all. =)

[Andrew Loke]

Dear Shaun ,

>Budak, please feel free to repeat them. There isn't a real response because of his 'anti-natural bias' (as opposed to my 'anti-supernatural' one).

* To say that there isn't a real response is a misrepresentation . As I demonstrated to you, the issue for the origin of life ( and species ) at the primary level is NOT NATURAL VERSUS SUPERNATURAL , but NON-INTELLIGENT VERSUS INTELLIGENT . The principles of forensic SCIENCE differentiates between intelligent and non-intelligent causes , therefore it is a scientific issue. Using principles similar to forensic science , one can conclude that the genetic code must have originated by an intelligent cause , as I demonstrated to you in my latest reply, even if that intelligent cause may be a purely material being ( such as an alien ) .

> I mean who cares if Science limits itself to the natural and material because the supernatural is not testable right?

* Science can differentiate between intelligent and non-intelligent cause . That is the role of science and that is as much as science can tell us with regards to origin of life and species issue .Science cannot prove as to whether the intelligent cause is natural or supernatural , that is the limitation of the scientific methodology . Indeed , science has no authority to dictate to us that the intelligent cause cannot be supernatural. Science is not the only avenue to truth , after all . Philosophy has its role .

The recognition by science that the origin of life is an intelligent cause points us beyond science itself into the realm of philosophy , where further philosophical reflections will reveal that the most reasonable conclusion is that ultimately a supernatural Designer must exist . Indeed , the philosophical answer to Richard Dawkin's philosophical question in his evolutionist book Climbing Mount Improbable as to who might be the designer of the designer ultimately yields the conclusion that God exist . ( see the appendix to my reply )

>And yes, how COULD there be contradictions when there is an omnipotent god? Religion is unfalsifiable, that's why it's not science.

* The explanation of that the origin of life is an intelligent designer is falsifiable , as I have shown you in my reply at your blog .

I hope you will seriously consider these issues .

Best wishes ,

Dr Andrew Loke

[Andrew Loke]

Dear yh ,

>in science, theories that best explain experiment results and physical observations are adopted. So unless you can come up with an alternative theory that can match the rigour of the theory of evolution, it will continue to be taught in school.

* WHEN did I say evolution should not be taught in school ? I want to highlight to you again that I did not say everything about evolution is wrong ; it is NOT micro-evolution ( the PROCESS of random mutation and natural selection ) I am opposing to . All creationist scientist accept that . These processes has experimental value. It is macroevolution: the expanation that all the present organisms which we observe today comes from simpler organisms which I object to . This issue is more " historical " in nature because it concerns what really happened IN THE PAST . Therefore the scientific method used will be more like the principles of forensic science : investigating an event that happened in the past to find out if a non- intelligent cause explain things better or an intelligent cause . Using these principles , we can realise that an intelligent cause explain the origin of life and species more reasonably than a non-intelligent explaination . That is my theory , and that is the theory of the creationist scientists.

As for your question " What evidence support your theory?" , I discussed it in my reply to noself , but since it seems that you have not read through it , I shall reproduce it here for you . The evidence that supports the explanation that the origin of life is an intelligent cause comes from the available knowledge of what is required for the DNA to form and the knowledge that the environment which is required for its formation cannot reasonably thought to exist in nature without the intervention of an intelligent agency ( see below ) .

The problem with the origin of life is not how you can get self-replicators ( soap bubbles in my bathroom also self-replicate , by the way ) , but how do you get the DNA which we see exist today . Having self-replicators such as soap bubbles doesn't help in any way at all to get the carbon to form DNA. And that's the problem with many origin-of-life theories (eg Cairns-Smith's clay crystals ). They are irrelevant. . They just talk about how you can get self -replicators ( clay crystals, proteinoid microspheres, etc ) , but such replicators are not even remotely related to the DNA chemically.

What one really need is an explanation of how DNA can form , not how any unrelated less complex self -replicators can form. After all, the question before us is that " Did the DNA which we now see arise by non-intelligent or intelligent cause ? " , not " how can self -replicator form ? " If one wants to proceed from the formation of self -replicators to DNA , one must list out the steps , otherwise one can come up with any kind of nonsensical self-replicators which are totally chemically unrelated ( eg soap bubbles ) .

To see what is MINIMALLY required for DNA to form , Graham Cairns-Smith has laid it out in the chapter : The implausibility of prevital nucleic acid , in his book Genetic Takeover And the Mineral Origins of Life, Cambridge University Press, 1982 , quoted below . Cairns-Smith is well known for a bizarre theory of the origin of life that the first living organisms were clay minerals . But not so well known is that he is driven to such outlandish ideas by the enormous chemical difficulties of mainstream theories of chemical evolution, such as the RNA World .

" There have indeed been many interesting and detailed experiments in this area. But the importance of this work lies, to my mind, not in demonstrating how nucleotides could have formed on the primitive Earth, but in precisely the opposite:

These experiments allow us to see, in much greater detail than would otherwise have been possible, just why prevital nucleic acids are highly implausible.

Let us consider some of the difficulties:

1.First, as we have seen, it is not even clear that the primitive Earth would have generated and maintained organic molecules. All that we can say is that there might have been prevital organic chemistry going on, at least in special locations.

2.Second, high-energy precursors of purines and pyrimidines had to be produced in a sufficiently concentrated form (for example at least 0.01 M HCN).

3 The conditions must now have been right for reactions to give perceptible yields of at least two bases that could pair with each other.

4.These bases must then have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made, and the solutions must have been sufficiently concentrated.

5.In some other location a formaldehyde concentration of above 0.01 M must have built up.

6.This accumulated formaldehyde had to oligomerise to sugars.

7. Somehow the sugars must have been separated and resolved, so as to give a moderately good concentration of, for example, D-ribose.

8.Bases and sugars must now have come together.

9.They must have been induced to react to make nucleosides.

10.Whatever the mode of joining base and sugar it had to be between the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar.

11.Phosphate must have been, or must now come to have been, present at reasonable concentrations. (The conc. in the oceans would have been very low, so we must think about special situations—evaporating lagoons and such things .

12. The phosphate must be activated in some way—for example as a linear or cyclic polyphosphate—so that (energetically uphill) phosphorylation of the nucleoside is possible.

13.To make standard nucleotides only the 5hydroxyl of the ribose should be phosphorylated

14.If not already activated—eg.as the cyclic 2,3phosphate—the nucleotides must now be activated (eg. with polyphosphate) and a reasonably pure solution of these species created of reasonable concentration. Alternatively, a suitable coupling agent must now have been fed into the system.

15.The activated nucleotides must now have polymerised. Initially this must have happened without a pre-existing polynucleotide template (this has proved very difficult to simulate); but more important, it must have come to take place on pre-existing polynucleotides if the key function of transmitting info to daughter molecules was to be achieved by abiotic means. This has proved difficult too.

16. The physical and chemical environment must at ALL TIMES have been suitable—for example the pH, the temperature, the M2+ concentrations.

17All reactions must have taken place well out of the ultraviolet sunlight; that is, not only away from its direct, highly destructive effects on nucleic acid-like molecules, but away too from the radicals produced by the sunlight, and from the various longer lived reactive species produced by these radicals.

18 Unlike polypeptides, where you can easily imagine functions for imprecisely made products (for capsules, ionexchange materials, etc.), a genetic material must work rather well to be any use at all—otherwise it will quickly let slip any information that it has managed to accumulate.

19. Nineteenth, what is required here is not some wild one-off freak of an event: it is not true to say ‘it only had to happen once’. A whole set-up had to be maintained for perhaps millions of years: a reliable means of production of activated nucleotides at the least.

You might want to argue about the nineteen problems that I chose: and I agree that there is a certain arbitrariness in the sequence of operations chosen. But if in the compounding of improbabilities nineteen is wrong as a number that would be mainly because it is MUCH TOO SMALL A NUMBER. If you were to consider in more detail a process such as the purification of an intermediate you would find many subsidiary operations—washings, pH changes and so on. (Remember Merrifield's machine: for one overall reaction, making one peptide bond, there were about 90 distinct operations required.) " ( end of quote )

Let me just highlight a few things :
- The right molecules " must then have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules " . But any non-intelligent natural forces that cause the separation ( eg waves , wind , etc ) could well move the opposite direction and cause the re-mixing of these molecules with the jumble. And you are back with square one .

- " Bases and sugars must now have come together " . Any non-intelligent natural forces that cause the come-together could well cause other chemicals ( eg sulphur , nitrites , etc ) to come together too and they would cross react with your base and sugar. And you are back with square one .

- "The physical and chemical environment must AT ALL TIMES have been suitable—for example the pH, the temperature, the M2+ concentrations. "

- " what is required here is NOT SOME WILD ONE-OFF FREAK OF AN EVENT: it is not true to say ‘it only had to happen once’. A whole set-up had to be maintained for perhaps MILLIONS OF YEARS: a reliable means of production of activated nucleotides AT THE LEAST." Is it reasonable to believe that the pH , the temperature , the m2 + concentration ,etc remain AT ALL TIMES suitable for MILLIONS OF YEARS ?

If it is not reasonable , then it cannot have been an undirected process . An intelligence must have been involved to direct the process. And we are just talking about the origin of DNA . We have not even talk about the conditions required for the cell membrane to form , the conditions required for other organelles to form , the conditions required for these to come together,etc . For a picture of a cell , see

As for the evidence for origin of species , the evidence for an intelligent designer is seen in the functional complex nature of body parts . The evidence against an evolutionary account is seen in the gaps of fossil records , such as between man and apes . For a peer reviewed work on this issue see Meyer, Stephen C: The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239.2004

As for your sarcastic remark " i'm sure you will have no problem with the peer review process since so many top scientists agree with you that the theory of evolution is weak , " I want to remind you that the unjust persecution of ID by the authorities committed to their unwarranted naturalistic explanation of the origin of life makes using journals and peer review an unobjective standard in this case . As documentated in Ch 3 of the book " Debating Design " , published by Cambridge University Press and edited by both IDer( Dembski) and prominent evolutionist Dr Michael Ruse , when science writer Forrest Mims admitted he questioned evolutionary theory in 1990, he was not hired to write for the journal Scientific American. When Dembski made known about his skepticism for macro-evolution , he was removed from his position as director of Michael Polanyi centre at Baylor university in 2000. ( for other documentation of persecution please refer to that chapeter in that book ) . The hostility of the establishment towards ID is one of the reason why peer reviewed ID articles , such as: Meyer, Stephen C: The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239.2004, is so hard to come by. Therefore claiming that no journal articles explicitly support ID is like pointing out that published Chinee government statistics do not support allegations of human right abuse .

Your example of Quantum mechanics and relativity are irrelevant because it concerns experimental science and not something like forensic science. Certainly we should pursue our investigations to find out how things work in the present ( experimental science ) , but as to how things originate in the past , we have to be open to the possible option of an intelligent cause which the principles of forensic science clearly recognise .

[Andrew Loke]

Shaun
>Fundamentalism is mroe properly defined as a person who adopts within a tradition, a particularly narrow view and seeks to impose that view to the exclusion of all other aspects of the tradition (Glenn on Comparative Legal Traditions). That's why fundamentalism is dangerous, because of its intolerance

* I am using the term Biblical fundamentalism to refer to those who take the Bible literally . This is in context with the article which Ivan quoted and also in context of this discussion in which I take the Biblical account literally .

[Andrew Loke]

It's funny that arguments stemming from the ID school (which claims to be old earth – meaning already a less than literal reading of Genesis) are embraced by believers who are happy to suspend old objections simply to score a point. Taken to its logical end, ID could well be inimical to evangelical Christianity in both its (oft unspoken) assumption of old earth timelines as well as its refusal to make explicit its ideological ties with right wing bible thumpers (thus leaving the arena open for any other deity).

* I am suspending judgement on the old earth versus young earth issue because neither the evidence from geology nor the evidence from the Bible regarding the age of the earth is currently conclusive . ( See my article on the SMJ <http://www.sma.org.sg/smj/) The age of the earth however does not detract from the veracity of the inference of an intelligent Designer for life and species .