It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Scientific proof of intelligent design? Prove me wrong, please
page: 5share:
reply to post by windlass34
Quite simple really. The Earth is not a closed system. It is gaining energy from the Sun. Furthermore dust and meteorites are adding new solid material, organic compounds and other stuff from space all the time.
Entropy (state of "disorder") of a closed system always increases, never decreases.
How can we then account for the formation of increasingly complex molecules needed for life from the so-called "primordial soup"? All other planets in Solar system follow this rule - very simple set of chemicals in their atmospheres, rarely anything more complex than basic inorganic stuff. Pretty much all organic molecules are associated with life - created by bacteria or other live organisms.
Can anybody explain this to me, please?
Quite simple really. The Earth is not a closed system. It is gaining energy from the Sun. Furthermore dust and meteorites are adding new solid material, organic compounds and other stuff from space all the time.
reply to post by jiggerj
To play devil's advocate for a minute, the elemental composition of rocks, e.g. (SiO2)n is infinitesimally simpler than the elemental composition of the genetic bases e.g. C10H13N5O4 which then form triplet codes (e.g. 3x previous) which are used to produce specific amino acids, several of which are combined to produce specific 1* --> 2* --> 3* structures which have a binding site which is exactly the shape required to perform function X.
I can understand why someone would look to creationism to explain such a complex system, but all I'm saying is that there have been several systems throughout history which have been described as "too complex to be produced by nature, therefore god" which have been shown to be completely attributable to evolution e.g. the eye (no, your link does not disprove it, whoever said it, it was awful, absolutely shameful misinterpretation).
We can't say how the genetic code came about at present, but saying "we don't know" does not mean "god did it."
To play devil's advocate for a minute, the elemental composition of rocks, e.g. (SiO2)n is infinitesimally simpler than the elemental composition of the genetic bases e.g. C10H13N5O4 which then form triplet codes (e.g. 3x previous) which are used to produce specific amino acids, several of which are combined to produce specific 1* --> 2* --> 3* structures which have a binding site which is exactly the shape required to perform function X.
I can understand why someone would look to creationism to explain such a complex system, but all I'm saying is that there have been several systems throughout history which have been described as "too complex to be produced by nature, therefore god" which have been shown to be completely attributable to evolution e.g. the eye (no, your link does not disprove it, whoever said it, it was awful, absolutely shameful misinterpretation).
We can't say how the genetic code came about at present, but saying "we don't know" does not mean "god did it."
Originally posted by Dispo
To play devil's advocate for a minute, the elemental composition of rocks, e.g. (SiO2)n is infinitesimally simpler than the elemental composition of the genetic bases e.g. C10H13N5O4 which then form triplet codes (e.g. 3x previous) which are used to produce specific amino acids, several of which are combined to produce specific 1* --> 2* --> 3* structures which have a binding site which is exactly the shape required to perform function X.
Codons (triplets) in protein-coding genes encode amino acids. However, they're not used in the production of amino acids
new topics
-
Federal law trumps state and local law every time
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 8 hours ago