"This Is Interesting"

Nothing of substance was said in atheist replies to the series of posts I did on “Where did the specific, complex information come from that is required for first life to arise on earth?”

That’s not particularly surprising since none of us specialise in this area. What is surprising to me is that no one brought up RNA replication which I thought was the latest darling in atheist origin of life mythologies. I really can’t guess as to the absence of this challenge. I was looking forward to it actually. So, being the unreasonably competitive person that I am, I’m going to pretend that someone brought it up.

Interesting that you should think RNA could be involved in early replication and the origin of life on earth. Interesting because it stands no chance of being a viable option. There are several reasons, five of which are highlighted by Stephen Meyer in his new book, “Signature in the Cell.”
1) RNA building blocks are hard to synthesize and easy to destroy
2) Ribozymes are poor substitutes for proteins
3) An RNA-based translation and coding system is implausible
4) The RNA world doesn’t explain the origin of genetic information
5) Ribozyme engineering does not simulate undirected chemical evolution

Got that? No, me neither.

My main concern over the last week or so has been the specified complexity or formulated information that is found in DNA and is necessary for life to exist. Where did it come from? Well, some atheists thought they had circumvented that problem through positing RNA self-replication which then allowed, through natural selection the development of DNA. Reality is, it can’t happen, and here’s why in language you can understand.

“If you scooped into [an enormous heap] of scrabble letters, and you flung a handful of them on the lawn there, and the letters fell into a line which contained the words, “To be or not to be, that is the question,” that is roughly the odds of an RNA molecule, given no natural selection and there would be no natural selection, because the RNA molecule wouldn’t be functional until it attained a certain length and could copy itself.”Shapiro, as quoted in Brockman, ed., “Life: What a Concept!” 90

Do you get THAT? I hope so because it’s pretty much what destroys all atheist hopes of this mythology working; just like Chance and Predestination can’t work either.

Natural selection begins ONLY after self-replication has taken place. RNA self-replication, as you will see, did not happen prior to the information being placed into the DNA.

“Without pre biotic natural selection it appears unlikely that a self-replicating ribozyme could arise, but without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first primitive self-replicating ribozyme.”
Joyce and Orgel, “Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World,” 35

Let me back up a bit. For a single-stranded RNA catalyst to create an RNA identical to itself so that it can self-replicate, it has to find a satisfactory RNA molecule close by in order to work as a template. That’s because a single-stranded RNA can’t work as both a replicase AND a template. As well, the RNA template would have to be the exact image of the replicase.

Remember “The Last Post On Chance”? Read that again and think about the odds of these two meeting up by chance. If you’re an atheist, you’re probably saying at this point, “It doesn’t matter what the odds are. It had to happen that way because here we are.”

You might want to hang on to that thought.

If - IF it actually happened, it would just make things worse. As well as the specificity needed to give the first RNA molecule a self-replicating ability, a second RNA molecule with an extremely specific sequence - one, I might add with the identical specificity as the original - would have to arise as well.

Like any of the atheists who reply here, those placing their faith in RNA bypassing the need for DNA, in order to self-replicate do not and cannot explain the origin of the specified complexity in the alleged original RNA molecule NOR in its compliment. It has been calculated by Joyce and Orgel that to have a reasonable chance of finding two complementary RNA molecules of a sufficient length to perform this function would require an “RNA Library” of 10 ^ 48 molecules.
Joyce and Orge, “Progress Toward Understanding the Origin of the RNA World” 33

In case you’re interested, the mass of that many RNA molecules would be greater than the mass of planet earth. Atheists of course are absolutely dependent on long odds to maintain their faith. Given those odds, however, the likelihood of even a primitive self-replicating system is, like Chance and Predestination, just not going to happen.

Because bias makes understanding what I’ve said almost impossible for atheists, someone will at this point say, “But natural selection . . .”

That means that I have to repeat,

Natural selection begins only AFTER self-replication has taken place. Replication happens only AFTER specified complexity is in place. Specified complexity, as we know from uniform experience only appears in the presence of or at the direction of Intelligence that has designed that complexity, OR in DNA, RNA, and Proteins.

The biggest problem, it seems to me, is that atheist researchers are so biassed against anything that isn’t naturalism they are forced to overlook the role that their OWN intelligence plays in programming their computers, formulating their algorithms, and even looking outside their box which of necessity is still within a larger naturalist box.

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”
Francis Crick, “Life Itself” 88

Research efforts have “led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present, all discussion on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in a stalemate or a confession of ignorance.”
Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life”

Atheist origin of the universe mythologies have grown to a dozen or more. I see no reason to doubt that Atheist origin of specified complexity mythologies will one day be just as long.

. We have every reason to reject Chance.

. We have every reason to reject Predestination. This is especially true since those clinging to predestination also search for the oxymoron, “A law that is able to force the production of information.”

Gorth should appreciate that one.

. We have every reason to reject protein-first theories

. We have every reason to reject DNA-first theories

. We have every reason to reject RNA-first theories

None of these atheist mythologies are able to explain the origin of the information that is needed for living cells to emerge and evolve.

So, like, thanks for all you guys who asked about RNA self-replication.