| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"IknowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
28 Jul 2003 10:21:44 AM |
| Object: |
Enzyme Origin |
Enzyme Origin
Evolutionists place their faith in chance, time and natural processes
(Father Time, Lady Luck and Mother Nature-every living thing is decended
from the same primordial cell...). The secular worldview includes the
origin of biological molecules-such as a critical group of very large
proteins called enzymes. These amazing units are designed to promote or
speed up biological activity(in fact there would be no biological activity
without them) within cells of plants, animals and people-but at a lower
temperature. If it weren't for enzymes it would literally take decades
for us to digest our meals!
According to evolutionism, organic(carbon-based) life evolved from
inorganic non-life. This means there would have to literally be a
self-assembley of something as extremely complex as a living cell. This
involves nucleic acids forming RNA and DNA, as well as amino acids(the
left handed varity only!) just happening to form proteins such as
enzymes(and this would have to occur at least 2000 times for all the 2000+
enzymes!). To get around the enormous problem of the random coupling of
amino acids to produce a functioning enzyme, atheists such as Trevor
Palmer appeals to the god of natural selection:
"...the Darwinian view would not be that the 2000 enzymes had suddenly
and simultaneously been assembled from their constituent amino acids in
one go, but that their structures had evolved from simpler ones over a
period of time by a process involving natural selection..."
And another atheist, G. F. Joyce, states"
"Where do enzymes come from? All of the enzymes that exist in nature are
the product of Darwinian evolution, based on natural selection."
These are hardly scienetific explanations. Natural selection presupposes
a population of LIVING organisms so that particular combinations of their
genes(DNA) may be eliminated or passed on. Darwin emphasized that natural
selection is differential success in reproduction-but there was no
reproduction in evolution's primordial, non-living planet!(circular
reasoning is the fall-back position with evolutionists). How the, could
the process of natural selection operate in a lifeless world?
Now, does anyone really think that evolution is possible?
.
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Enzyme Origin |
28 Jul 2003 11:29:44 AM |
|
|
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2807030821440001@pm10-14.kalama.com...
Enzyme Origin
Evolutionists place their faith in chance, time and natural processes
(Father Time, Lady Luck and Mother Nature-every living thing is decended
from the same primordial cell...). The secular worldview includes the
origin of biological molecules-such as a critical group of very large
proteins called enzymes. These amazing units are designed to promote or
speed up biological activity(in fact there would be no biological activity
without them) within cells of plants, animals and people-but at a lower
temperature. If it weren't for enzymes it would literally take decades
for us to digest our meals!
According to evolutionism, organic(carbon-based) life evolved from
inorganic non-life.
This is incorrect. The Theory of Evolution does not have anything to say
about the origin of life, but only the origin of species. You might want to
rephrase your comments.
This means there would have to literally be a
self-assembley of something as extremely complex as a living cell.
Actually, cells self-assemble everyday. That's what they do. What you
probably mean is that a modern cell self-assembled from inert matter on the
primordial Earth, but science posits no such thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Litchfield" |
|
| Title: Re: Enzyme Origin |
28 Jul 2003 11:53:18 AM |
|
|
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:iccVa.1309$t35.450231307@twister2.starband.net...
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2807030821440001@pm10-14.kalama.com...
Enzyme Origin
Evolutionists place their faith in chance, time and natural processes
(Father Time, Lady Luck and Mother Nature-every living thing is decended
from the same primordial cell...). The secular worldview includes the
origin of biological molecules-such as a critical group of very large
proteins called enzymes. These amazing units are designed to promote or
speed up biological activity(in fact there would be no biological
activity
without them) within cells of plants, animals and people-but at a lower
temperature. If it weren't for enzymes it would literally take decades
for us to digest our meals!
According to evolutionism, organic(carbon-based) life evolved from
inorganic non-life.
This is incorrect. The Theory of Evolution does not have anything to say
about the origin of life, but only the origin of species. You might want
to
rephrase your comments.
This means there would have to literally be a
self-assembley of something as extremely complex as a living cell.
Actually, cells self-assemble everyday. That's what they do. What you
probably mean is that a modern cell self-assembled from inert matter on
the
primordial Earth, but science posits no such thing.
I see that INHDY is back once again in his sado-masochistic quest to stand
before this group and tell us something he knows nothing about...
Shalom,
Bill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Omniscient Blade" |
|
| Title: Re: Enzyme Origin |
28 Jul 2003 03:03:14 PM |
|
|
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2807030821440001@pm10-14.kalama.com...
Enzyme Origin
Evolutionists place their faith in chance, time and natural processes
(Father Time, Lady Luck and Mother Nature-every living thing is decended
from the same primordial cell...). The secular worldview includes the
origin of biological molecules-such as a critical group of very large
proteins called enzymes. These amazing units are designed to promote or
speed up biological activity(in fact there would be no biological activity
without them) within cells of plants, animals and people-but at a lower
temperature. If it weren't for enzymes it would literally take decades
for us to digest our meals!
They act as molecular catalysts to give a more concise description. They are
not particularly amazing, they are just chains of amino acids that fold into
certain conformations. They are not critical to a self replicating chemical
system such as biological systems are, but they are needed for increased
complexity and organisation.
According to evolutionism, organic(carbon-based) life evolved from
inorganic non-life. This means there would have to literally be a
self-assembley of something as extremely complex as a living cell. This
involves nucleic acids forming RNA and DNA, as well as amino acids(the
left handed varity only!) just happening to form proteins such as
enzymes(and this would have to occur at least 2000 times for all the 2000+
enzymes!). To get around the enormous problem of the random coupling of
amino acids to produce a functioning enzyme, atheists such as Trevor
Palmer appeals to the god of natural selection:
No, this is not what evolution proposes at all, nor is it what is required.
For life to start you ONLY need a molecule that can act both as a catalyst
that assembles more of that type of molecule from a template and can act as
a template itself. Then and ONLY then you can have evolution start to act.
"...the Darwinian view would not be that the 2000 enzymes had suddenly
and simultaneously been assembled from their constituent amino acids in
one go, but that their structures had evolved from simpler ones over a
period of time by a process involving natural selection..."
And another atheist, G. F. Joyce, states"
"Where do enzymes come from? All of the enzymes that exist in nature are
the product of Darwinian evolution, based on natural selection."
These are hardly scienetific explanations.
These explainations are now scientifically backed by experimentation and
observation given that enzymes are no actually needed for the first evolving
self replicating system that was the basis of biological life.
Natural selection presupposes
a population of LIVING organisms so that particular combinations of their
genes(DNA) may be eliminated or passed on. Darwin emphasized that natural
selection is differential success in reproduction-but there was no
reproduction in evolution's primordial, non-living planet!(circular
reasoning is the fall-back position with evolutionists). How the, could
the process of natural selection operate in a lifeless world?
No one says it did, you are arguing from ignorance of your own world and
ignorance of what work other people have done. What is more, you are
attempting to mis-represent scientists that have tried to honestly explain
how things work. Natural selection DID NOT operate to create the first
living systems, nor was it required to and so there is no circular logic.
Now, does anyone really think that evolution is possible?
Yes, the vast majority of the scientific establishment and a large swath of
the global public, at least in countries with anything like a secular
education system.
--
Blade ICQ#27537648
Smart people can fake being stupid, but stupid people can't fake being
smart.
Change .con to demon<dot>co<dot>uk to send mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Enzyme Origin |
29 Jul 2003 03:34:48 PM |
|
|
The Omniscient Blade <blade@mysanctuary.con> wrote in message
news:bg6ill$mns$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
"The Astute Andrew" <evolvedmind@diespammers.com> wrote in message
news:7szVa.45297$o27.972840@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
<snip>
Yes, the vast majority of the scientific establishment and a large
swath of the global public, at least in countries with anything like a
secular education system.
Good to see that you're still around Blade.
I just have a quick question for the resident bio-chemist. What is the
current thinking on how evolution occurs? Or, more specificially, how
rapidly it occurs?
I guess, to be even more specific, does the scientific community
believe the evolution of organisms occurs at a set and steady rate or
in bursts and fits (punctated equilbrium... if I remember the exact
name of the theory/observation/whatever it is)?
I think the most accepted view is that it is something of a mix and that
both can happen. Under times of extreme environmental change (this is
relative to how the organism it used to living mind), evolution can take
place very quickly as most individuals don't survive and thus any
beneficial genes that help in the new survival constraints are
concentrated. Under less extreme changes, more individuals can survive
even if they are not the best fit and so it takes time for any
improvements to filter through the population. If there is little or no
pressure to change a population can stay pretty much unchanged for
millennia.
That's the correct answer. There is no one uniform rate of evolution; it
varies depending on the selective pressure. (Genes which are under positive
selection for some emerging new function can mutate very rapidly indeed.)
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Enzyme Origin |
28 Jul 2003 03:19:50 PM |
|
|
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-2807030821440001@pm10-14.kalama.com...
Enzyme Origin
[...]
According to evolutionism, organic(carbon-based) life evolved from
inorganic non-life. This means there would have to literally be a
self-assembley of something as extremely complex as a living cell.
No there wouldn't. Here is what abiogenesis is really all about, as opposed
to the creationist caricatures of it:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
--
"We have loved the stars too fondly | a.a. #2001
to be fearful of the night." | http://www.ebonmusings.org
--Tombstone epitaph of | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
two amateur astronomers, | ICQ: 8777843
quoted in Carl Sagan's _Cosmos_ | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: Enzyme Origin |
28 Jul 2003 07:06:38 PM |
|
|
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message news:<IknowHim-2807030821440001@pm10-14.kalama.com>...
Enzyme Origin
Evolutionists place their faith in chance, time and natural processes
(Father Time, Lady Luck and Mother Nature-every living thing is decended
from the same primordial cell...). The secular worldview includes the
origin of biological molecules-such as a critical group of very large
proteins called enzymes. These amazing units are designed to promote or
speed up biological activity(in fact there would be no biological activity
without them) within cells of plants, animals and people-but at a lower
temperature. If it weren't for enzymes it would literally take decades
for us to digest our meals!
According to evolutionism, organic(carbon-based) life evolved from
inorganic non-life. This means there would have to literally be a
self-assembley of something as extremely complex as a living cell. This
involves nucleic acids forming RNA and DNA, as well as amino acids(the
left handed varity only!) just happening to form proteins such as
enzymes(and this would have to occur at least 2000 times for all the 2000+
enzymes!). To get around the enormous problem of the random coupling of
amino acids to produce a functioning enzyme, atheists such as Trevor
Palmer appeals to the god of natural selection:
"...the Darwinian view would not be that the 2000 enzymes had suddenly
and simultaneously been assembled from their constituent amino acids in
one go, but that their structures had evolved from simpler ones over a
period of time by a process involving natural selection..."
And another atheist, G. F. Joyce, states"
"Where do enzymes come from? All of the enzymes that exist in nature are
the product of Darwinian evolution, based on natural selection."
These are hardly scienetific explanations. Natural selection presupposes
a population of LIVING organisms so that particular combinations of their
genes(DNA) may be eliminated or passed on. Darwin emphasized that natural
selection is differential success in reproduction-but there was no
reproduction in evolution's primordial, non-living planet!(circular
reasoning is the fall-back position with evolutionists). How the, could
the process of natural selection operate in a lifeless world?
Now, does anyone really think that evolution is possible?
Sure we do. Your premises are silly. For a more realistic version
of how things worked way back then, take a look at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/06/980610082901.htm
and see that RNA can be both the genetic molecule and the enzyme.
Why do you presume that things took such big steps? Think like an
evolutionary and take little bitty steps.
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: Enzyme Origin |
29 Jul 2003 10:39:58 PM |
|
|
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message news:<IknowHim-2907031127060001@pm1-22.kalama.com>...
In article <31dd8bee.0307281606.59ad83db@posting.google.com>,
joeblow@volcanomail.com (Joe Blow) wrote:
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message
news:<IknowHim-2807030821440001@pm10-14.kalama.com>...
Enzyme Origin
Evolutionists place their faith in chance, time and natural processes
(Father Time, Lady Luck and Mother Nature-every living thing is decended
from the same primordial cell...). The secular worldview includes the
origin of biological molecules-such as a critical group of very large
proteins called enzymes. These amazing units are designed to promote or
speed up biological activity(in fact there would be no biological activity
without them) within cells of plants, animals and people-but at a lower
temperature. If it weren't for enzymes it would literally take decades
for us to digest our meals!
According to evolutionism, organic(carbon-based) life evolved from
inorganic non-life. This means there would have to literally be a
self-assembley of something as extremely complex as a living cell. This
involves nucleic acids forming RNA and DNA, as well as amino acids(the
left handed varity only!) just happening to form proteins such as
enzymes(and this would have to occur at least 2000 times for all the 2000+
enzymes!). To get around the enormous problem of the random coupling of
amino acids to produce a functioning enzyme, atheists such as Trevor
Palmer appeals to the god of natural selection:
"...the Darwinian view would not be that the 2000 enzymes had suddenly
and simultaneously been assembled from their constituent amino acids in
one go, but that their structures had evolved from simpler ones over a
period of time by a process involving natural selection..."
And another atheist, G. F. Joyce, states"
"Where do enzymes come from? All of the enzymes that exist in nature are
the product of Darwinian evolution, based on natural selection."
These are hardly scienetific explanations. Natural selection presupposes
a population of LIVING organisms so that particular combinations of their
genes(DNA) may be eliminated or passed on. Darwin emphasized that natural
selection is differential success in reproduction-but there was no
reproduction in evolution's primordial, non-living planet!(circular
reasoning is the fall-back position with evolutionists). How the, could
the process of natural selection operate in a lifeless world?
Now, does anyone really think that evolution is possible?
Sure we do. Your premises are silly. For a more realistic version
of how things worked way back then, take a look at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/06/980610082901.htm
and see that RNA can be both the genetic molecule and the enzyme.
Why do you presume that things took such big steps? Think like an
evolutionary and take little bitty steps.
Joe
__________________________________________________
I don't have that little biddy of a mind. Sorry...
Yes, I suspected that the extra detail and subtlety would be too much
for you. I also noticed that you were not able to answer the substance
of what I said.
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Omniscient Blade" |
|
| Title: Re: Enzyme Origin |
30 Jul 2003 03:17:16 PM |
|
|
"Joe Blow" <joeblow@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:31dd8bee.0307291939.60a31535@posting.google.com...
<snip>
Sure we do. Your premises are silly. For a more realistic version
of how things worked way back then, take a look at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/06/980610082901.htm
and see that RNA can be both the genetic molecule and the enzyme.
Why do you presume that things took such big steps? Think like an
evolutionary and take little bitty steps.
Joe
__________________________________________________
I don't have that little biddy of a mind. Sorry...
Yes, I suspected that the extra detail and subtlety would be too much
for you. I also noticed that you were not able to answer the substance
of what I said.
At least he replied to you...those of us that made the effort to type out
long winded explanations that his arguments would have to be typed next to,
thus making him look more ignorant and foolish, didn't even get that
courtesy.
--
Blade ICQ#27537648
Smart people can fake being stupid, but stupid people can't fake being
smart.
Change .con to demon<dot>co<dot>uk to send mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Enzyme Origin |
30 Jul 2003 03:27:39 PM |
|
|
"The Omniscient Blade" <blade@mysanctuary.con> wrote in message
news:bg995i$q7j$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...
"Joe Blow" <joeblow@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:31dd8bee.0307291939.60a31535@posting.google.com...
<snip>
Sure we do. Your premises are silly. For a more realistic version
of how things worked way back then, take a look at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/06/980610082901.htm
and see that RNA can be both the genetic molecule and the enzyme.
Why do you presume that things took such big steps? Think like an
evolutionary and take little bitty steps.
Joe
__________________________________________________
I don't have that little biddy of a mind. Sorry...
Yes, I suspected that the extra detail and subtlety would be too much
for you. I also noticed that you were not able to answer the substance
of what I said.
Blade: At least he replied to you...those of us that made the effort to
type out
long winded explanations that his arguments would have to be typed next
to,
thus making him look more ignorant and foolish, didn't even get that
courtesy.
Tom: I suspect LeavingheresoonIhope is nothing more than a troll.
Unfortunately all of us fall all over ourselves answering the fool.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: Enzyme Origin |
30 Jul 2003 09:37:04 PM |
|
|
"The Omniscient Blade" <blade@mysanctuary.con> wrote in message news:<bg995i$q7j$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk>...
"Joe Blow" <joeblow@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:31dd8bee.0307291939.60a31535@posting.google.com...
<snip>
Sure we do. Your premises are silly. For a more realistic version
of how things worked way back then, take a look at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/06/980610082901.htm
and see that RNA can be both the genetic molecule and the enzyme.
Why do you presume that things took such big steps? Think like an
evolutionary and take little bitty steps.
Joe
__________________________________________________
I don't have that little biddy of a mind. Sorry...
Yes, I suspected that the extra detail and subtlety would be too much
for you. I also noticed that you were not able to answer the substance
of what I said.
At least he replied to you...those of us that made the effort to type out
long winded explanations that his arguments would have to be typed next to,
thus making him look more ignorant and foolish, didn't even get that
courtesy.
I guess I'm just blessed.
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IknowHimDoYou" |
|
| Title: Re: Enzyme Origin |
30 Jul 2003 12:13:05 PM |
|
|
You didn't say anything...
In article <31dd8bee.0307291939.60a31535@posting.google.com>,
joeblow@volcanomail.com (Joe Blow) wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message
news:<IknowHim-2907031127060001@pm1-22.kalama.com>...
In article <31dd8bee.0307281606.59ad83db@posting.google.com>,
joeblow@volcanomail.com (Joe Blow) wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message
news:<IknowHim-2807030821440001@pm10-14.kalama.com>...
Enzyme Origin
Evolutionists place their faith in chance, time and natural processes
(Father Time, Lady Luck and Mother Nature-every living thing is decended
from the same primordial cell...). The secular worldview includes the
origin of biological molecules-such as a critical group of very large
proteins called enzymes. These amazing units are designed to promote or
speed up biological activity(in fact there would be no biological
activity
without them) within cells of plants, animals and people-but at a lower
temperature. If it weren't for enzymes it would literally take decades
for us to digest our meals!
According to evolutionism, organic(carbon-based) life evolved from
inorganic non-life. This means there would have to literally be a
self-assembley of something as extremely complex as a living cell. This
involves nucleic acids forming RNA and DNA, as well as amino acids(the
left handed varity only!) just happening to form proteins such as
enzymes(and this would have to occur at least 2000 times for all
the 2000+
enzymes!). To get around the enormous problem of the random coupling of
amino acids to produce a functioning enzyme, atheists such as Trevor
Palmer appeals to the god of natural selection:
"...the Darwinian view would not be that the 2000 enzymes had suddenly
and simultaneously been assembled from their constituent amino acids in
one go, but that their structures had evolved from simpler ones over a
period of time by a process involving natural selection..."
And another atheist, G. F. Joyce, states"
"Where do enzymes come from? All of the enzymes that exist in
nature are
the product of Darwinian evolution, based on natural selection."
These are hardly scienetific explanations. Natural selection
presupposes
a population of LIVING organisms so that particular combinations
of their
genes(DNA) may be eliminated or passed on. Darwin emphasized that
natural
selection is differential success in reproduction-but there was no
reproduction in evolution's primordial, non-living planet!(circular
reasoning is the fall-back position with evolutionists). How the, could
the process of natural selection operate in a lifeless world?
Now, does anyone really think that evolution is possible?
Sure we do. Your premises are silly. For a more realistic version
of how things worked way back then, take a look at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/06/980610082901.htm
and see that RNA can be both the genetic molecule and the enzyme.
Why do you presume that things took such big steps? Think like an
evolutionary and take little bitty steps.
Joe
__________________________________________________
I don't have that little biddy of a mind. Sorry...
Yes, I suspected that the extra detail and subtlety would be too much
for you. I also noticed that you were not able to answer the substance
of what I said.
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: Enzyme Origin |
30 Jul 2003 09:35:58 PM |
|
|
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message news:<IknowHim-3007031013050001@pm6-33.kalama.com>...
In article <31dd8bee.0307291939.60a31535@posting.google.com>,
joeblow@volcanomail.com (Joe Blow) wrote:
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message
news:<IknowHim-2907031127060001@pm1-22.kalama.com>...
In article <31dd8bee.0307281606.59ad83db@posting.google.com>,
joeblow@volcanomail.com (Joe Blow) wrote:
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message
news:<IknowHim-2807030821440001@pm10-14.kalama.com>...
Enzyme Origin
Evolutionists place their faith in chance, time and natural processes
(Father Time, Lady Luck and Mother Nature-every living thing is decended
from the same primordial cell...). The secular worldview includes the
origin of biological molecules-such as a critical group of very large
proteins called enzymes. These amazing units are designed to promote or
speed up biological activity(in fact there would be no biological
activity
without them) within cells of plants, animals and people-but at a lower
temperature. If it weren't for enzymes it would literally take decades
for us to digest our meals!
According to evolutionism, organic(carbon-based) life evolved from
inorganic non-life. This means there would have to literally be a
self-assembley of something as extremely complex as a living cell. This
involves nucleic acids forming RNA and DNA, as well as amino acids(the
left handed varity only!) just happening to form proteins such as
enzymes(and this would have to occur at least 2000 times for all
the 2000+
enzymes!). To get around the enormous problem of the random coupling of
amino acids to produce a functioning enzyme, atheists such as Trevor
Palmer appeals to the god of natural selection:
"...the Darwinian view would not be that the 2000 enzymes had suddenly
and simultaneously been assembled from their constituent amino acids in
one go, but that their structures had evolved from simpler ones over a
period of time by a process involving natural selection..."
And another atheist, G. F. Joyce, states"
"Where do enzymes come from? All of the enzymes that exist in
nature are
the product of Darwinian evolution, based on natural selection."
These are hardly scienetific explanations. Natural selection
presupposes
a population of LIVING organisms so that particular combinations
of their
genes(DNA) may be eliminated or passed on. Darwin emphasized that
natural
selection is differential success in reproduction-but there was no
reproduction in evolution's primordial, non-living planet!(circular
reasoning is the fall-back position with evolutionists). How the, could
the process of natural selection operate in a lifeless world?
Now, does anyone really think that evolution is possible?
Sure we do. Your premises are silly. For a more realistic version
of how things worked way back then, take a look at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/06/980610082901.htm
and see that RNA can be both the genetic molecule and the enzyme.
Why do you presume that things took such big steps? Think like an
evolutionary and take little bitty steps.
Joe
__________________________________________________
I don't have that little biddy of a mind. Sorry...
Yes, I suspected that the extra detail and subtlety would be too much
for you. I also noticed that you were not able to answer the substance
of what I said.
You didn't say anything...
What do you expect me to do? Read it to you? C'mon, pull your own weight!
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Enzyme Origin |
30 Jul 2003 03:25:58 PM |
|
|
LeavingheresoonIhope: You didn't say anything...
Tom: Oh, he said plenty, your itty bitty brain couldn't absorb it.
In article <31dd8bee.0307291939.60a31535@posting.google.com>,
joeblow@volcanomail.com (Joe Blow) wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message
news:<IknowHim-2907031127060001@pm1-22.kalama.com>...
In article <31dd8bee.0307281606.59ad83db@posting.google.com>,
joeblow@volcanomail.com (Joe Blow) wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message
news:<IknowHim-2807030821440001@pm10-14.kalama.com>...
Enzyme Origin
Evolutionists place their faith in chance, time and natural
processes
(Father Time, Lady Luck and Mother Nature-every living thing is
decended
from the same primordial cell...). The secular worldview includes
the
origin of biological molecules-such as a critical group of very
large
proteins called enzymes. These amazing units are designed to
promote or
speed up biological activity(in fact there would be no biological
activity
without them) within cells of plants, animals and people-but at a
lower
temperature. If it weren't for enzymes it would literally take
decades
for us to digest our meals!
According to evolutionism, organic(carbon-based) life evolved from
inorganic non-life. This means there would have to literally be a
self-assembley of something as extremely complex as a living cell.
This
involves nucleic acids forming RNA and DNA, as well as amino
acids(the
left handed varity only!) just happening to form proteins such as
enzymes(and this would have to occur at least 2000 times for all
the 2000+
enzymes!). To get around the enormous problem of the random
coupling of
amino acids to produce a functioning enzyme, atheists such as
Trevor
Palmer appeals to the god of natural selection:
"...the Darwinian view would not be that the 2000 enzymes had
suddenly
and simultaneously been assembled from their constituent amino
acids in
one go, but that their structures had evolved from simpler ones
over a
period of time by a process involving natural selection..."
And another atheist, G. F. Joyce, states"
"Where do enzymes come from? All of the enzymes that exist in
nature are
the product of Darwinian evolution, based on natural selection."
These are hardly scienetific explanations. Natural selection
presupposes
a population of LIVING organisms so that particular combinations
of their
genes(DNA) may be eliminated or passed on. Darwin emphasized that
natural
selection is differential success in reproduction-but there was no
reproduction in evolution's primordial, non-living
planet!(circular
reasoning is the fall-back position with evolutionists). How the,
could
the process of natural selection operate in a lifeless world?
Now, does anyone really think that evolution is possible?
Sure we do. Your premises are silly. For a more realistic version
of how things worked way back then, take a look at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/06/980610082901.htm
and see that RNA can be both the genetic molecule and the enzyme.
Why do you presume that things took such big steps? Think like an
evolutionary and take little bitty steps.
Joe
__________________________________________________
I don't have that little biddy of a mind. Sorry...
Yes, I suspected that the extra detail and subtlety would be too much
for you. I also noticed that you were not able to answer the substance
of what I said.
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
