Recently on Twitter, @Andrew_X_Thomas and I had a disagreement--I think there is more evidence for creationism and he thinks evolution has more evidence. Instead of hurling insults like children we decided to have a civil and polite discussion on the matter here. So, I believe I have the privilege of making the opening statement.
What is Creationism?
First let me clear up exactly what I mean by creationism. A simple definition may be that God created organisms divided into kinds which may speciate, but may never change kind (eg. human kind, fish kind, dog kind, etc.) Taxonomically kinds may be defined as somewhere between class and family. As opposed to the "tree of life" used in evolutionary biology, a creationist would see the progress of life as below.
The what is commonly called "micro evolution" or speciation is not unique to the theory of evolution since creationism employs it as well.
The Problem with Abiogenesis
The major fundamental flaw with evolution is that there is no explanation for the origin of life. According to the theory of evolution there must be an abiogenetic method by which life has arisen. In the 50's, Miller and Urey did experiments in which a mixture of water and the gasses thought to be within the early atmosphere were passed through a system such as below which used electric discharges to simulate lightening on the early Earth.
The experiment yielded a mixture of amino acids and other organic molecules and the mechanism by which life arose was thought to be found.
But the experiment has serious flaws.
The mixture of gasses used were those that would be found in a reductive atmostphere, yet there is ample evidence that the early atmosphere was oxidative instead. This means that any amino acids or organic molecules produced would be oxidated shortly after they were formed and would not be usable as a building block of life. It is actually for this reason that the mixture of gasses used was reductive, because only a reductive atmosphere would be conducive to life.
Further, there is also a problem with the chirality of amino acids, DNA, RNA and sugars. All amino acids in the vast majority of species on Earth are homochiral left handed (with the exception of a handful of other species) and all DNA, RNA and sugars in all species on Earth are homochiral right handed (again with the few exceptions.) However, all organisms on Earth to have these same chiralities poses a problem since the results of Miller-Urey type experiments yield equal amounts of each handedness of molecule. Since the current evolutionary idea is that there was a "ring of life" in which life arose simultaneously in many areas one would expect there to be 4 distinct types of organisms with each possible combination of chiralities. However, only 1 combination (amino left handed and carbohydrate right handed) exists. This would either point to the idea that a single organism gave rise to all life (which science has rejected) or that life could not have arisen in its current form if Miller-Urey type pathways are responsible for the abiogenesis of life.
There are many more problems with Miller-Urey type experiments including the effects of Brownian motion, the origin of DNA and RNA, the concentration of organic molecules in primordial soup, etc. but the former two are the most succinct and immediate problems with this method of abiogenesis.
However, the major problem arises when one considers that if Miller-Urey type pathways of abiogenesis are discarded, there is no valid alternative to the problem with the origin of life. Some argue transpermia as an alternative, but all this explanation does is move the problem of abiogenesis to another planet. Since there is no viable, well supported theory of the origin of life; the naturalistic view of abiogenesis is essentially faith: Scientists know life arose by chemical means without the intervention of a God without any evidence or proof to support this position.
Due to technical difficulties you can read the debate on @Andrew_X_Thomas's website.
No comments:
Post a Comment