|
Feedback archive →
Feedback 2009
Is RNA self-replication evidence for evolution?; and: Does CMI tell “flat
out” lies?
Published: 31 October 2009(GMT+10)
3D structure of myoglobin, a protein used to store oxygen in muscles. This protein
was the first to have its structure solved by X-ray crystallography. From Wikipedia,
after Phillips, S.E., Structure and refinement of oxymyoglobin at 1.6 Â resolution,
J. Mol. Bio. 142(4):531–54, 5 October 1980.
Correspondent Davis G. wrote:
Hello,
I’m sure I am one of many writing in to get your opinion on the scientific
experiment reported in the media earlier this year in which RNA seems to self-replicate
as well as evolve to favor certain “species”.
Could you please give us the creationist perspective on this? Thanks much, and God
bless your ministry.
Best Regards
Davis G.
CMI’s Dr Jonathan Sarfati, a Ph.D. chemist, responds:
Dear Mr G./ Dear Davis
It’s likely that the media reports you mention were referring to the paper
in Science journal by Tracey Lincoln and Gerald Joyce.1 Quite often, the media hype just doesn’t match
what was actually discovered. To be fair, Joyce, a well known chemical evolutionist,
made it clear that he and his Ph.D. student Lincoln had not produced life, despite
the headlines.2 Much earlier,
Joyce admitted:
“The most reasonable assumption is that life did not start with RNA …
. The transition to an RNA world, like the origins of life in general, is fraught
with uncertainty and is plagued by a lack of experimental data.”3
Quite often, the media hype just doesn’t match what was actually discovered
Joyce and Lincoln started off with a fairly long RNA molecule. Given that nothing
like RNA appears in Miller–Urey experiments, this already shows
unjustified interference from an intelligent investigator. In fact,
not even the building blocks, ribonucleotides, appear in such experiments, and they
do not spontaneously form RNA. In fact, there are numerous chemical difficulties
with obtaining RNA by blind undirected chemistry, the only sort allowed on the hypothetical
primordial earth, as chemical evolutionist A.G. Cairns-Smith points out in his book
Genetic Takeover4
(see extract at
Cairns Smith: Detailed criticisms of the RNA world hypothesis). And it’s
a huge step from RNA to the
genetic code, its
major use today.
Not even the building blocks, nucleotides, appear in such experiments, and they
do not spontaneously form RNA
Furthermore, this paper didn’t demonstrate replication but ligation—joining
two small RNA pieces. So this research already assumed not just one but
three RNA strands. For this to be relevant to chemical evolution, the two
pieces just by chance had to have pretty close to the complementary base
pairs of the first piece—natural selection could not be invoked before reproduction.
Furthermore, since
polymerization is unfavorable, the RNA pieces must be chemically activated
in some way. Note that a catalyst merely accelerates the approach to equilibrium;
it doesn’t change it (see diagram and explanation in
Dino proteins and blood vessels: are they a big deal?). The paper states
that one of the two joining RNA strands has a triphosphate group on the end. This
is very reactive, so would be an unlikely component of a primordial soup, and would
not last long even if it appeared. So a supply of matching activated RNA pieces
likewise shows unacceptable investigator interference.
See also
Does ribozyme research prove Darwinian evolution? for a critique of an earlier
Joyce paper on alleged ribozyme evolution, as well as
Self-replicating peptides? which has many similarities to the recent Joyce
claim.
Regards
Jonathan Sarfati
CMI-Australia
Does CMI tell “flat out” lies?
Jonathan Wojcik claims to have read every word of our website and that every word
is a lie. Is CMI engaged in deception? First the letter is printed entire, then CMI’s
Lita Cosner responds point-by-point, showing that his accusations are nothing more than
poorly-informed mudslinging.
I’ve read every word of your website, and every word of it is a lie. I feel
sorry for any poor, unsuspecting layman who comes across this snake-oil of yours.
Every “flaw” you point out in evolution isn’t even based on ANY
observable truth. You just write whatever you can come up with in your head that
sounds smart, preying on human ignorance.
And for what? What constructive purpose could there possibly be in denying evolution?
It’s an observable truth that contradicts God no moreso than the truth that
you grew in a womb. Individuals from individuals, species from species. How can
you so violently plug your ears and deny the mountainous, exponential, continuing
proof of common descent SOLELY because someone wrote a few words in a book that
might contradict it if interpreted in your ultra-literal fashion? Many
human hands recorded words in the bible across many languages. Nowhere does it demand
you take genesis so literally, nowhere does it explicitly state how old the planet
is or that animals can never change.
I know I don’t need to convince you. You know full well that you tell flat-out
lies to the public and only see what you want to see when you look at the proof
of speciation all around us. You should be ashamed.
Dear Mr Wojcik/ Dear Jonathan,
While we do not believe that the Bible is a ‘science textbook’, we believe
that it is essentially a historical book and that it can be trusted to be correct
regarding its historical and scientific claims.
I’ve read every word of your website, and every word of it is a lie. I feel
sorry for any poor, unsuspecting layman who comes across this snake-oil of yours.
Every “flaw” you point out in evolution isn’t even based on ANY
observable truth. You just write whatever you can come up with in your head that
sounds smart, preying on human ignorance.
I am sorry that you came away with such a negative impression of our website, although
reading ‘every word’ of the now more than 7,000 articles we’ve
published online is quite an accomplishment. If you had given a specific instance
of an error, we would have carefully checked to make sure that the article was accurate,
not outdated, etc, but since you did not, it’s not even a real accusation,
just mudslinging. I assure you that we never intentionally post articles with false
information. As someone who writes articles for the website, Creation magazine,
and the Journal of Creation, I thoroughly check sources and go out of my
way to ensure that I don’t misrepresent my sources in any way. Anything less
would not be printed. In fact, we are so committed to integrity in our apologetics
ministry that we encourage creationists not to use
faulty arguments for creation (one of the top 10 read articles on our site),
and we have written articles criticizing Christian hoaxes like the
archaeological ‘discoveries’ of Ron Wyatt.
And for what? What constructive purpose could there possibly be in denying evolution?
It’s an observable truth that contradicts God no more so than the truth that
you grew in a womb. Individuals from individuals, species from species. How can
you so violently plug your ears and deny the mountainous, exponential, continuing
proof of common descent SOLELY because someone wrote a few words in a book that
might contradict it if interpreted in your ultra-literal fashion?
God could have used any mechanism He wanted to create the world. But we believe
the Bible tells us what God actually did.
The short answer to why we oppose evolution is because it is a view of origins which
completely contradicts the biblical record, which we believe to be the Word of God.
While we do not believe that the Bible is a ‘science textbook’, to quote
the strawman so often used against creationists, we believe that it is essentially
a historical book and that it can be trusted to be correct regarding its
historical and scientific claims. (Please re-read
‘But Genesis is not a science textbook’; “re-read”
since by your own account you must already have read it  )
God could have used any mechanism He wanted to create the world, so you
are correct in saying that evolution doesn’t necessarily contradict God per
se (this is why we believe that
someone can be an evolutionist and a Christian). But we believe the
Bible tells us what God actually did. Furthermore, the god of theistic evolution,
who would have to declare a world full of death and disease ‘very good’,
would not be consistent with the character of the God of the Bible. Again, for someone
so familiar with our website, and what we argue, you show stunning ignorance of
our arguments (e.g.
Some questions for theistic evolutionists).
I know I don’t need to convince you. You know full well that you tell flat-out
lies to the public and only see what you want to see when you look at the proof
of speciation all around us. You should be ashamed.
It would be very strange if so many people in our ministry gave up better-paying
jobs, where they frankly wouldn’t receive this sort of angry feedback so often,
to contend for a position they believed to be a lie. Every one of us is involved
in this ministry because we believe that the historical nature of Genesis 1–11 is foundational to a biblical worldview,
and that this affects the interpretation of the rest of the Bible.
Incidentally, I’m surprised that you would use “speciation all around
us” as an example of the truth of evolution—because having read every
word of our site, you would have surely come across the substantial number of articles
on speciation, showing how it is a reality, and how creationists should be excited
as examples of “surprisingly fast” speciation are reported. To refresh
your memory, see Speedy species
surprise: The rapid appearance today, of new varieties of fish, lizards, and more
defies evolutionary expectations … but fits perfectly with the Bible.
We are not ashamed of the work we do here; it has led to many people coming to faith
in the true God and salvation through
His Son, Jesus
Christ. We are pleased that He has used our ministry both to convert
non-Christians to the faith, and to strengthen the faith of those that are already
believers.
Sincerely,
Lita Cosner
Information Officer
Creation Ministries International
Related articles
Further reading
Related resources
References
- Lincoln, T. and Joyce, G.,
Self-sustained replication of an RNA enzyme, Science 323(5918):1229–1232,
2009. Return to text.
- Britt, R.,
Life as we know it nearly created in lab, LiveScience, 11 January 2009.
Return to text.
- Joyce, G.,
RNA evolution and the origins of life, Nature 338:217–224,
16 March 1989. Return to text.
- Cairns-Smith, A.G., Genetic Takeover: And the Mineral Origins
of Life, Cambridge University Press, 1982. Return to text.
|
