Sauron

Anyone else seen this?

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4220.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4220.asp</a>

tgamble

I know (almost) nothing about biology, chemistry or geology but I do know the article is complete bullshit. I base this on two things 1) It's written by Jonathan Sarfati and 2) It's from AIG.

That pretty much gurantees that it's bullshit.

I think refuting these points would make a great FAQ for talkorigins.

Peregrine

The key problem with his thesis is that the loopholes he describes (other than being utter bullshit) has nothing to do with evolution.

Peter P.

"Without enzymes from a living cell, formaldehyde (HCHO) reactions with hydrogen cyanide (HCN) are necessary for the formation of DNA
and RNA bases, condensing agents, etc. But HCHO and especially HCN are deadly poisons — HCN was used in the Nazi gas chambers!
They destroy vital proteins."

RNA and DNA, not being proteins, would not be affected by either HCN or HCHO. First of all HCN destroys the Electron Transport Chain, by emitting free protons when dissolved, not be disfiguring "vital proteins". While deadly, it is not deadly for his reason.


"Abundant Ca2+ ions would precipitate fatty acids (necessary for cell membranes) and phosphate (necessary for such vital compounds as
DNA, RNA, ATP, etc.). Metal ions readily form complexes with amino acids, hindering them from more important reactions."

Ok, ok....I did not know that Ca 2+ ions precipitate fatty acid chains, which seens unusual for me. Second of all, free phosphate ions are regularly available as a result of the expenditure of ATP to produce AMP and free Ca2+ ions are also regularly available due to the nerve system's use of ion gated channels, many of which use Ca2+. If what he postulates was true, we couldn't exist today.

Point 7 is just dumb since he said HCN and HCHO are present, both of which are weak acids in water, and he saids there weren't acids at all...

"10.Long time periods do not help the evolutionary theory if biochemicals are destroyed faster than they are formed (cf. points 4, 7, & 9)."

But conditions change over long periods.

I am getting bored...why is this guy so dumb...maybe my Bio prof will get a kick out of this one...

Corey Hammer

The guy basically doesn't know his @$$ from a hole in the ground.

Point for Point:

1. He's likely right, but then again "primitive atmosphere" depends on what you mean. He ignores debris collisions that would later add those compounds to a less "primitive atmosphere."

2. Logical Fallacy: Preferred Proof; Ignoring the Evidence

3. assuming the world was drenching consistently and uniformly in all places including crevasses in rocks

4. ...and what makes him think that didn't happen? Also, water does not stay nicely in place for the next lightening bolt to strike.

5. they are deadly poisons to us! Who says that primitive lifeforms of that time could not handle. Some archeobacteria do today.

6. Logical Fallacy: Strawman & absence of evidence is not evidence of absense

7. ...it didn't happen in water. It most likely happened in small crevasses in rocks that acted as catalytic surfaces.

8. Stipulated, but we're dealing with billions of years here, not 2 days, a week, or a month.

9. ...and conditions were the same over the world at all times?

10. Conclusion but no evidence...surely some survive long enough

11. so? billions of years again.

12. here he shows lack of knowledge in chemistry; chemicals will react in certain ways that have "preferred" outcomes, including chirality

13. yeah, and? Evolution has a random component to it too. What's useful gets kept, the useless gets thrown out. This only provides evidence for abiogenesis.

14 & 15. I'm not even going to bother. They're both logical fallacies and I'm too tired to look them up.

Kevin Dorner

Well, creationists only have to have points good enough to fool the "general public," say, someone with a standard high-school education level in chemistry or biology. Since this is about 99% of everyone, they hope that with 99% of the populace howling for the "Truth That Sets Men Free"(TM) to be the standard and a paltry 1% of those who know better disagreeing, that this will be a victory.

Reading over the points, there are some that are invalid if it is considered that the origin of life occurred at or near an oceanic hydrothermal vent, but of course this won't be considered. I'm certainly not a professional and I can see this immediately, so a professional could refute all of these. However, the professionals are on the defensive by refuting (which makes abiogenesis look like it's in dire straits) and as has been stated, it could take a lifetime of effort to refute the casual errors in a hour of creationist speaking.

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Valentine Pontifex

One big problem with this is it makes a dumb [censored] assumption that all local conditions are the same as the atmosphere in general. Reducing conditions do not have to occur everywhere and thus this point does not rule out a Miller-type situation. And of course, why do we have to limit ourselves to just what Miller did?


#3 is even worse. UV does do what Sarfati says it does, but only if something is exposed to it. Being underwater or underground would solve that problem.

Dr.GH

The geochemical study of meteorites, and sediments much older that those aluded to in the Sarfati article, or the D. Denner article Sarfati references, indicates that the atmosphere was reducing. Not just neutral without free O2, but reducing.

Note that the data on atmospheric chemistry in the Denner article is nearly all 30 to 40 years old. It is the Denner article that Sarfati cites as authority.

The points to keep in mind are that the conditions under which stock chemicals can be originated preceed those in which peptides and other polymers formed. There is a massive literature on this which I am slowly getting a grip on. I would be very nice if Miller, or some of his students would get involved in these discussions. (It would save me a lot of effort.)

bluefugue

Creationists are very smart to frame these things in the highly technical terms of chemistry and molecular biology. Most well-rounded folks who accept evolution, but who only know about it in the less technical sense (i.e. by reading Gould, Darwin, Dawkins, etc.), are utterly unable to respond to this kind of thing. Any creationist on any message board can now post these "15 problems with evolution," and only the rare folks who have studied chemistry in some detail have any hope to refute it. Others are unable to respond, leaving the creationist to declare victory by default.

This is good ammunition for them, same as Behe (never mind the fact that Behe apparently accepts at least some version of evolution). The more incomprehensible scientific terms you can throw into the argument, the harder it is to refute, and the more legitimate those "guitar-strumming hillbillies" appear to be. Baffle 'em with BS... works every time.