I suggest that those who cut down what the ID people are doing, do some private investigating. However, I know they will not.
I have already done some private investigating.
They have been so thouroughly indoctrinated in evolution that they have so great a faith in it that they believe that evolution is a science that has been proven.
Nothing is
ever proven in science.
According to my studies the scientists know just about every detail about a simple single cell. The argument between ID and evolution could be solved in short while if those knowledgable scientist would just assemble, from scratch, a copy of a simple cell.
Of course they can't do this and NEVER will be able to do it. It literally takes a MIRACLE to make non-living chemical into a living cell.
Just to assemble the necessary proteins for a cell would be monumental, and if they did, they would have only a tiny part of a cell's material and no place to put it.
To assemble a viable cell the scientists would have to have all the components in one spot and have the cells outer membrane ready to instantly recieve the multitudinous contents. An extremely short delay would result in cell death.
It's a little more complicated than that. Not many scientists think that the first living organism was a cell that just fell into place. Darwinian evolution can take effect as soon as something is able to self-replicate with some copying errors. Cells developed long after the first self-replication.
In the 1960s, a famous experiment showed the RNA from the QB virus would self-replicate if placed in a solution containing the necessary nucleotides and a replication protein from the same virus. During the experiment, copying errors occured, and the RNA rapidly evolved into one which was much more suited to its sole new role: self-replication. The new RNA, dubbed
Spiegelman's Monster, was much more efficient at copying itself than the initial virus RNA.
A decade later, another, similar experiment was performed. A mixture containing free nucleotides and replication proteins was stimulated with QB RNA, which self-replicated. Astonishingly, though, it was found that the RNA would self-assemble and begin self-replicating (with copying errors) without a single strand of RNA being added.
Now, of course, there were no replication-aiding proteins wherever life first emerged. But that doesn't say much of anything. Proteins are a catalyst, and catalysts determine only the speed, not the direction, of chemical reactions. Self replication would have been painfully slow, but the first strands of DNA or RNA certainly had plenty of time on their hands.
The first self-replicating molecule probably wasn't very similar to conventional DNA or RNA. It may have had more bases than modern molecules do. Its composition would have been very much dictated by the primordial soup from which is first emerged. However, over time, molecules with more efficient compositions would have been able to out-produce and therefore out-compete their more primitive ancestors.
It's easy to understand how proteins would have arisen from self-replicating nucleic acids. Nucleic acids that produced proteins which helped them replicate even faster would have had an enormous production advantage over nucleic acids that did not. This advantage would have led them to out-compete the competition, and thus win the evolutionary struggle for survival.
It would have taken a long time for most of the components of cells to arise. The initial replication of life would have been a very arduous process, and would have been littered with failed "species." Scientists still aren't sure exactly where or how life arose, and it's still unclear how the first cells came about. But we know a lot more than we used to, and it's very clear that the first cells did not arise out of some chance conglomeration of molecules. Natural selection took over as soon as the first molecule made a copying error while replicating itself, and life progressed from there.
PS: This same process, without human help, would have been necessary to make the first living cell, and even the evolutionists scientists will reluctently admit that. That is why they have POSTULATED a proto-cell as the first life form.
I've never heard this before, but I think I have a useful counter-argument. Scientists believe cells to be the simplest living thing. How could anything but a cell be the first life form? That certainly doesn't mean that cells were created out of the blue, though.
To this, I say, show us a working proto cell and we will believe you.
Come on, it's 2007, surely with all the brains looking at this problem you can do it. But of course, we both know it is impossible. So don't waste your time.
Why should we bother trying to do that when we're reasonably certain that that's not how life began?
Please tell us when you get the Nobel prize.
