I hope you guys don't mind me starting a new thread on the same topic. Previously, I stated that the probability of a functional protein forming by chance was one in 10 to the 65th power, though in reality, life could not originate from a single protein. The point I was trying to make was, that, most people don't have a clear understanding of the immense hurdles that would have to be overcome for "nature" to produce life from inert matter. You're probably familiar with the monkey and the typewiter analogy, where if a monkey presses the keys long enough, he will eventually produce the works of Shakespeare. This is not a good analogy. The reason being, a letter produced on a piece of paper is a stable end-product, in biochemistry, the letter would have a strong inclination to jump off the paper and back on to the key due to the law of chemical equilibrium. For example, if a DNA molecule would happen to form by random, it would quickly (micro-seconds) dissociate. In nature, these bio-molecules are components of "information systems", that is, they contain the genetic information to build a living organism. At the cellular-level, DNA functions along with messenger RNA, many enzymes, along with the ribosome etc, in an integrated system. The information needed to construct the ribosome, RNA etc, is contained in the DNA. This system is "irreducibly complex". All known irreducibly complex systems are the result of intellegent design. Why should these be different?

• Re: animals-continued - Enigma - September 26, 1999 - 02:37 UTC
  • Chaos - Phil.o.sofir - September 27, 1999 - 04:51 UTC
  • Re: animals-continued - bzrd - September 27, 1999 - 17:51 UTC
    • I see info everywhere - Phil.o.sofir - September 29, 1999 - 06:26 UTC
• My absurd proposal - Phil.o.sofir - September 27, 1999 - 04:41 UTC