An Atheistic Creation Story in Action; “The Origin of the Genetic Code”

After I posted my explanation of abiogenesis as the atheistic creation story, Ubiquitous Che, over at rhetoric sans pareil, posted a video, and an article, in rebuttal.  I’ve already responded to his article on his blog, but I wanted to respond to the video itself.

 

The video is by someone called cbk007, who has a entire library of videos explaining evolution, and tackling the sticky subjects that are much attacked by Intelligent Design and Creationist folk.  This video is entitled “The Origin of the Genetic Code.”

 

I know that Ubiquitous Che meant the video as a response to “Abiogenesis:  The Atheistic Creation Story”, however all he did was provide a GREAT example of that creation story in action.  The point of my article wasn’t to show the impossibility of abiogenesis persay (anything is possible), but to show that abiogenesis is a story equal in mythology to any other creation story portrayed by any other belief system.  Cbk007’s video has only helped me to make that case.  I recommend you watch the video with the mind of discerning what is observable science and what is speculative.

 

 

 

I will now take the important claims and phrases cbk007 uses to make his case and I’ll respond to them. 

 

“As showed in the previous video, life can spontaneously form from fatty acids and activated nucleotides”

 

I don’t even need to watch the previous video to know that all cdk007 is doing here is speculating.  “Life CAN sponteaneously form . . .” is a statement in the same mold as “Anything CAN happen”.  And it violates a LAW of biology, the Law of Biogenesis.  In fact, if he had ANY evidence that this was possible he would have won the Nobel Prize in biology.  Also, this doesn’t solve ANY of the problems I put forth in my post.  Where does the genetic information come from?  But I’m sure he’ll get to that.

 

“Mutations in the originally random nucleotide sequences that increased the rate of replication would rapidly be selected for, this jumpstarting evolution.”

 

Ok, again, there is no evidence of this, it has never been observed, this is pure speculation.  As I already mentioned in my article, Natural Selection REQUIRES sexual reproduction to happen in the first place.  Cdk007 is using the very thing he is trying to explain; he’s begging the question.  He is also equivocating the definition of Natural Selection to pretend that it applies to non-sexual replication, it just doesn’t.

 

Correction:  An astute reader, Zhatt, pointed out to me that bacteria reproduce asexually.  I stand corrected.  However, Natural Selection still requires reproduction and pre-biotic chemicals don’t reproduce, so the rebuttal stands.

 

There are several points in this video I don’t need to respond to because all cdk007 is doing is saying what “could have” and “maybe” or “possibly could have maybe” happened.  He is manufacturing ways that RNA came about without explanation or evidence, because he has neither.  This is not science, it is naturalistic speculation at it’s most blatant. 

 

“ribozymes are routinely evolved in laboraties”

 

Firstly . . . your point?  Secondly, cdk007 is begging the question of how RNA can function on it’s own without DNA because this has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.  It’s like cdk007 believes that the world of the hypothetical can just be transposed onto the real world without explanation and that this makes rational sense.  Thirdly, “ribozymes have been evolved” suggests that an outside hand guided the evolution.  Is this an example of true evolution?  Or is this evidence of theistic evolution?

 

“Experiments tell us that such micropeptides did exist naturally in the pre-biotic environment”

 

Now he’s just lying to people.  The “pre-biotic environment” that he is referring to happened 4.5 billion years ago.  How do experiments recreate the earth 4.5 billion years ago?  Oh, that’s right, they can’t.  It’s more pure speculation.  Scientists guess at what they think the primordial soup could have been made of, because they weren’t there and therefore can’t have any evidence of it, and call it an “experiment”, it’s disengenous at best and plain bearing false witness at worst.  That cdk007 portrays it as absolute fact makes it the latter.

 

“joining two amino acids can be evolved”

 

You need at least 15 more, in the right order, only left handed aminos, and then 500 just like it to form a cell.  I already went over this in my post, the chances of this are ridiculous and that cdk007 thinks it happened is a statement of faith.  But that’s not the real problem; how were these two amino acids joined in the lab?  With a scientists’ guiding hand?  With Intelligence?  Hmmmm.

 

“From here the evolution of DNA is simple”

 

This is just a flat out lie.  ANY geneticist will tell you it’s not simple.  I’m honestly just incredulous right now.

 

Cdk007 then shows pictures of ribozymes forming amino acids together in chains. 

 

He’s missing the point.  It isn’t that the amino acids can form into chains, it’s that they know the EXACT chains to form into, they must be a precise shape to work and cdk007 knows it.  How do they do this?  They are told by DNA how to do this.  This is what DNA does, this is DNA’s job, telling the RNA how to form the proteins.  He is using the formation of proteins to explain DNA; this is impossible, proteins would not form without DNA, they wouldn’t know how to.  Without the information DNA provides, proteins would not form properly.  He is begging the question and flat out ignoring the problem of the genetic information that proteins REQUIRE to form. 

 

He continues to use Natural Selection as a pre-biotic driving factor when this is impossible.  Natural Selection requires already formed, recombinating cells.  Cdk007 flatly ignores this.

 

During the video, cdk007 just repeats the fallacies I’ve pointed out above over and over again.  Using phrases like, “Over time . . .”, “will . . .”, “then . . .”, in order to ignore and falsely portray the COMPLETELY SPECULATIVE nature of his creation story.

 

The primitive structure of protein formation that he shows:

 

What he completely ignores is that, in ALL observed cases, in all observable science, this structure ONLY takes place within a cell, AND DNA must tell the RNA how to form this structure.  Where does the information on how to form in this way come from, cdk007?  Genetic information is required for this structure to form correctly, where does this information come from absent of DNA?  Where does this information come from at all?

 

“Curious how many of these components (mRNA, tRNA, rRNA) are still RNA today”

 

This is hilarious because he’s never seen anything besides mRNA, tRNA, and rRNA.  The existence of some “primitive” RNA that he is comparing the “today” RNA to is complete speculation and has never been observed. 

 

Then he begins to attempt to give computer simulations as evidence of evolution:

 

Computer simulations are designed by intelligent human beings with a purpose in mind (creating a simulation that will allow for evolution).  Thank you for providing evidence and an argument that evolution requires intelligence.

 

“There goes the ‘common design-common designer’ argument”

 

More hilarity.  So different codons means they have nothing in common with the rest of life?  Give me a break.  And plus, this is a strawman of the argument.  That argument is only saying that similarities in the genetic code aren’t evidence of evolution, only evidence of similarity.  The argument IS NOT saying that every genetic code must be closely similar.

 

“Intelligent Design/Creationism would predict a perfect code”

 

Uh, not really.  I can’t speak for ID guys, because I’m not one, but a basic doctrine of the Christian worldview is that humanity has messed up what God created in the Garden of Eden.  If this corruption is reflected in the genetic code then that only supports the doctrine.  However, I’m not sure that even Creationists need a perfect genetic code in Adam.  The argument that God didn’t create a perfect genetic code at creation therefore God isn’t intelligent or perfect is exactly like saying since God created humans with the ability to do evil therefore God must be evil. It doesn’t follow.

 

In closing, cbk007 makes several statements:

 

“Even something as complex as a “language” can evolve by purely natural means.”

 

I watched the whole video and cbk007 didn’t tackle the complexity of the genetic code, not once.  He pawned it off on Natural Selectin, which I thoroughly debunked, and left it at that.  What cbk007 actually did his entire video was IGNORE the problem of genetic information by speculating that the ribozymes, amino acid and RNA structures can form on their own and randomly, without being told how to do so.  This has never been observed.  It’s a nice story, and even atheists need a creation story, but calling it “science” when there is zero evidence to back it up is a bit irrational.

 

“All you have to do is open your eyes.  The evidence is out there.  The experiments have been done.  The simulations have been run.  Closing your eyes to the world around you, will not change reality.”

 

Actually, what it seems that I have to do is CLOSE my eyes and imagine the scenarios that you put forth.  None of them have been observed, they are pure speculation, and they have come from the intelligent and active imagination of atheistic scientists with the purpose of denying God.  It’s funny that you talk about reality but, in reality, nothing that you say happened has ever been observed to happen.  The reality is that RNA and proteins need DNA to form correctly, every observable instance shows that they cannot do what you say they can do on their own.  The reality is that Natural Selection only acts upon sexually recombinating cells.  In fact, everything you put forth asks us to imagine a violation of reality.

 

“The Genetic Code DID evolve”

 

And they say evolution and atheism is not dogmatically defended.

 

“All I ask is that you think about it . . .”

 

Actually, what it seems you’re asking is for us to take what you’re saying at face value.  Because if we were to think about it, we would realize the mere speculation that your entire creation story is based upon. 

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Discussion, science

Tags: , , , , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

8 Comments on “An Atheistic Creation Story in Action; “The Origin of the Genetic Code””

  1. Zhatt Says:

    I have a lot of issues with your post, but I don’t have time to address them all, so I’m going to address the one which I see as the most blatant error.

    Neither selection nor natural-selection require sex. If that were the case, there wouldn’t be the issue of overusing antibiotics. Bactria multiply by asexual reproduction, but they mutate, get selected by the environment and evolve. Selection doesn’t necessarily need to be connected to evolution either. When you use antibiotics on bacteria, most are killed, but some have traits that resist the antibiotics and become “selected”. Even if these bacteria don’t go on to multiply and evolve, they have still been selected. As well evolution isn’t necessarily confined by the realm of biology. “Memes” evolve as well as anything that changes, becomes selected and multiplies. All evolution really means is that which survives, survives and that which doesn’t, doesn’t.

    -Zhatt

  2. House Says:

    “Because if we were to think about it, we would realize the mere speculation that your entire creation story is based upon. ”

    Because Bronze age mythology is so much better?

  3. krissmith777 Says:

    House Says:

    “Because Bronze age mythology is so much better?”

    Hmmm, what do you think is more scientific? Thrology or Pure conjecture?

  4. krissmith777 Says:

    My favorite part of the video is when it tries to dismiss the arguement that we have devolved.

    By doing this it makes assumptions that philosophically based, not scientificaly based.

    1) It assumes that if a perfect God made DNA/RNA then there would be no mistakes in the code now.

    It says “Intelligent Design/Creationism would predict a perfect code — unless the designer (God) is less intelligent than a mere scientist.”

    This assumes that 1) God doesn’t exist, 2) Errors in DNA code could not have happened as a result of sin and thus bringing in illness and death and suffereing in the world. — Of course I am arguing from a philosophical view as well. 🙂

    Also 3) It assumes to actually know what is perfect. The argument therefore is “We see some errors in the code so therefore evolution is the answer.” — Obviously this is such a logical fallacy.

    It’s the assumption that God would never create anything with flaws because he is perfect. — This logic however doesn’t work. We can both agree that God created us, however we are still flawed.

    Does this argument mean God would never creat flawed human beings??? — There is a famous saying used when we make mistakes: “I’m only human.” — We as humans, by definition, are flawed. But God created us.

    Who ever came with the idea that God requires perfection in creation?

  5. Eric Kemp Says:

    Zhatt

    “Bacteria multiply by asexual reproduction, but they mutate, get selected by the environment and evolve. Selection doesn’t necessarily need to be connected to evolution either.”

    I stand corrected. But my point also stands. Binary fission is still a form of reproduction. Pre-biotic chemicals don’t reproduce. Cbk007 must fabricate a scenario in which chemicals reproduce themselves in order to apply selection to them.

    “As well evolution isn’t necessarily confined by the realm of biology.”

    Look, that evolution takes place in biology is almost as factual as you can get. However, that evolution takes place in the social realm, in the passing of ideas, is nothing more than conjecture. There is no evidence that Darwinism applies any where else but biology. And just because Dawkins wrote it, doesn’t make it fact.

  6. Eric Kemp Says:

    Troll

    I said: ““Because if we were to think about it, we would realize the mere speculation that your entire creation story is based upon. ”

    You said: “Because Bronze age mythology is so much better?”

    This is a great example of your a priori anti-supernatural bias. You are literally saying that you prefer modern, scientific mythology to any other mythology for no other reason except that you prefer it.

  7. pricegutshall Says:

    Eric Kemp says: “This is a great example of your a priori anti-supernatural bias. You are literally saying that you prefer modern, scientific mythology to any other mythology for no other reason except that you prefer it.”

    Look up ‘a priori,’ because I’m not sure if you used it as you intended. Also, a priori ‘knowledge’ is often what guides us to ‘supernaturalism,’ because such knowledge is not based on observation; rather, it defaults on egocentric perspectives of the world.

    On the point of modern, scientific mythology: it simply does a better job at explaining questions we have about the natural world than religion. It’s like the car is more efficient for getting from one place to another than the horse; modern science is more efficient at explaining natural phenomenon such that we can predict future events and outcomes than religion.

  8. pricegutshall Says:

    Eric Kemp Says: “Look, that evolution takes place in biology is almost as factual as you can get. However, that evolution takes place in the social realm, in the passing of ideas, is nothing more than conjecture. There is no evidence that Darwinism applies any where else but biology. And just because Dawkins wrote it, doesn’t make it fact.”

    You’re right. Applying the evolution paradigm to phenomenon which it does not cover is mere conjecture; it doesn’t mean that it is wrong or that it is right. We do, based on the most fundamental philosophical premise of evolution, is that that which survives (continues to exist) is that which has been selected within the conditions of its environment. This is true for everything; however, that is not to imply that the same underlying mechanisms of evolution have analogous counterparts in social/cultural development.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: