Thank you for continuing this discussion. This reply has been written with the help of a scientist. The article you cited about Orgel’s work talked a great deal about abiogenesis. The comments mentioned about abiogenesis and Orgel’s “laws” were in light of the entire article, not just a few sentences about bacteria. This depends on how you define “unsolved.” A materialistic solution based on what was historically called “chemical evolution” but is now more commonly called “abiogenesis” is unsolved. A creationist believes the reason for this is simple: Natural processes are inadequate to form life in and of themselves. It is not that the origin of life is an unknown field waiting for initial studies. Thousands of experiments have plausibly been performed since 1953, when the Miller-Urey spark experiment converted methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen into mostly tar, a small percentage of other organic compounds totaling over 100 different kinds in number--most of which would act as contaminants and hence interfere with an origin of life--and a yet a much smaller portion of various amino acids, but which would have been in the wrong ratios to do anything useful. Abiogenesis cannot get out of the starting blocks. It cannot even take the first step successfully. This pattern is repeated through experiments performed at any stage desired. As discussed in the article at www.osf.io/p5nw3 , one of the most basic properties of nature, randomization, appears to thwart every step of abiogenesis. So, the field is quite well known. However, every observed experiment in the field appears to confirm that randomization makes a natural origin impossible. So, in one sense the problem IS solved. We understand why natural processes cannot create life. In effect there has been no real progress since 1953. There is no observed basis to expect this to improve even after hundreds of years. The issue is that so many people are so committed to materialism that the strength of the evidence is irrelevant. If you understood how randomization works and the solidity with which its influence in abiogenesis has been confirmed, you should understand that this appears to be only blind hope in denial of the evidence. Actually, the mathematical analysis is a major element of randomization. There is a third option, initial creation of a limited number of broad categories. These members of these categories would have been created with a broad range of potential variation. Adaptive radiation would have caused specialization within the initial genome. An initially created cat-kind would have evolved into house cats, pumas, leopards, lions, and tigers. However, specialization takes place at the loss of information. A house cat has lost the ability to become a lion and vice-versa. The range of variation possible can be increased to a small degree by mutations. But, this only has a relatively minor impact on the total genome. This is the Biblical perspective. Members of a kind can trace their genetic history to a common progenitor. Even today, cats, bears, canines, cattle, etc. can be of different species and genera and still be linked together by hybrids. A quick check on Wikipedia of cat hybrid, bear hybrid etc. discusses this. The Bible does not define the boundaries of the kinds. It had no reason to do so. However, it appears that in general the family level is where the initial creation would fit into the modern scheme. This sounds good from a general perspective. This argument is falsified by the article mentioned earlier at www.osf.io/p5nw3 unless you or someone can show that the problem of randomization can be overcome. Entropy is simply a mathematical expression of randomization. When something appears to be going against entropy, one should be very, very careful about flippantly ignoring the red flags this poses just because it might contradict his personal philosophical preferences. Orgel said that bacteria evolve. A creationist has no problem with that. In a later post, Bugenhagen talked about how single-cell algae was able to mutate into multi-cellular algae. This is basically evolution within the same kind. Algae are known to exist in both single-cellular form and multiple cellular form. This is merely variation characteristic of algae in general. A more detailed analysis of the change could confirm its relative insignificance or it could be worthy of front-page news. Random behaviors need to be characterized by two behaviors: 1) the statistical probability of the event happening and 2) the number of opportunities for it to occur. So, if the starting genome was known for an initial single-cell alga and if the final genome was known for its multicellular form, then the discussion can become meaningful. If the number of mutations required for the conversion are small and the number of opportunities are large, the event is insignificant. However, in the multi-cellular form there is a web encompassing the individual algae cells. If this web consists of an entirely new protein in the cell defined in the genome, is excreted through an opening in the cellular membranes as defined in the genomes, and if the amount of webbing is controlled by a complex feedback loop defined in the genome, then this could represent a major discovery. At this point, the evolutions of the bacteria and algae make for interesting conversation. However, to be of significant interest they need to have an analysis such as mentioned above of the statistical difficulty of the event occurring and the number of opportunities for it to take place.
Humans and monkeys are physically very similar. Is there any Jesus equivalent for the monkeys where it talks about sin & salvation and those things?
Only people were created in God's image. We were also given dominion over the animals. See Genesis 1:27, 28. There is nothing in the Bible that would imply that monkeys live forever and need eternal salvation.
This is a problem created in the religionist's mind. It does not exist in the scientific realm, which has nothing of substance in common with faith-based religion. In the religious sense, science is faithless. Science does not involve itself with religion; nor should the faithful cloud their minds with science, lest they they become confused and lose faith. Such is not the path to heaven. I'll make brief comment on a few of your misunderstandings with regard to the scientific realm. Orgel, like hundreds of other scientists over the years, was very interested in the question of "abiogenesis," Regardless, we should not confuse Orgel's unambiguous demonstration of evolution in bacteriophage with his abiding interest in biogenesis. That article I cited for you was because it can be read by non-scientists, it's biographical in nature. Orgel's scientific papers are numerous, if you care to attempt to read them. Of course I understand what "randomization means," I am a highly trained scientist. But do you, I wonder. Taken out of specific context, it means to put in random, i.e., no particular, order. I strongly suspect that when you refer to what you call "the problem of Randomization" you are invoking the preachers admonition that the natural world could not have arisen randomly." When the preacher of religion says such a thing, it implies in the mind of the faithful that there must be among their flock those subject to the influence of the faithless who, the preacher has implied, believe life arose by a random process. This makes no sense at all to the scientist. In the scientific realm, physical and chemical processes are predetermined by the natural laws. I could have said "highly directed" by natural law, but I hesitate to do so, because the next step in the preacher's admonition is to assume that since life could not have arisen by random process, it therefore required "direction," as in "intelligent design." The scientist, who does not believe that life arrived on the planet by random process in the first place, will not go down this rabbit hole. The faithful, on the other hand, are happy to, and should, lest they should lose faith and risk hell's fire and damnation. We are still at the point of the religionist who draws conclusions from the conclusionless. The OSF article you linked to is a fine one, I have only one comment (see below). But what does the failure of all experimental attempts so far say about the mechanism for abiogenesis. Apparently damn little. Can we then draw a conclusion as you have. Hardly. but you are not alone, even scientists make that same mistake sometimes, but fortunately it is rather rare. The article in OSF ascribes the failure of the primitive experiments described to "randomization". These results have no impact on current hypotheses of abiogenesis. In science when we don't know the answer to a problem, we say so. When the religionist does not know the answer to a problem, they may create an answer compatible with their faith --as modified by modern necessity of course. And this is as it must be. Otherwise the religionist's faith could be shaken from its foundation. I am standing on my original statement regarding the "abiogenesis problem" : This is a problem that, I am inclined to believe, can only be solved mathematically; thus only indirectly demonstrated. I doubt it will be of any help to say this, but I mention it anyway. I have in mind a solution heavily dependent on statistical mechanics and both carbon photo- and thermo- chemistry at an interface, and on a simulated geological time scale. I don't believe it will be possible for man to demonstrate ab initio abiogenisis in the laboratory. ______________ I detest the word "abiogenesis" which means, in current context, "without biogenesis". It is a bad word made necessary by "biogenesis" having been already been pressed into use by Pasteur. Pasteur meant living organisms coming from living organisms. So abiogenesis means living organisms not coming from other living organism. I still don't like this word, but it is too entrenched to get rid of, and it is all because Pasteur used the wrong word in the first place...
This video presents an explanation of the similarities and differences of the human and the chimp genomes from a biblical perspective. Timestamps: 00:00 Comparison of human genome with chimp genome 01:00 “One of the things that not many people know about this study is that large sections of DNA from both the human and the chimp genome were left out when making this comparison.” 02:13 “Wow. Ignoring 18% of the chimp genome and 25% of the human genome, that’s a lot to ignore.” 05:00 Comparison of chimp brains with human brains 07:40 Jeffrey Tompkins, Ph.D. in genetics from Clemson University, is quoted: “The programmer doesn’t start from scratch each time he develops a new program. Instead he uses the same general commands that he used for other projects. It shows the creator’s efficiency and ingenuity.” Chimps are not the only creatures that share similarities with humans. Evolutionists claim that one of the strongest evidences for a common ancestor is the shared anatomy between species. Neil Shubin presented this view in his book and a PBS documentary and called it Your Inner Fish. There is a problem with that view, however, because there is no evidence to show transition between species. The following quotes are taken from a creationist review of Your Inner Fish: https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/tv/review-your-inner-fish/ Your Inner Fish, hosted on PBS by fish paleontologist Neil Shubin of Tiktaalik fame, blends fishy fables with embryology, genetics, and human anatomy. Shubin points out the pattern, “One bone, two bones, lots of bones, and then digits.” Anatomists generally use the same names for these bones regardless of the species in which they appear, for this is a pattern repeated in the limbs and wings of terrestrial vertebrates and birds. Our hands are connected via a group of wrist bones to a forearm containing two long bones (radius and ulna) and then to an upper arm containing a single bone (humerus).5 Shubin says the pattern was puzzling until Darwin explained, “At some time in the distant past they all shared a common ancestor that had a version of this pattern too.” Darwin’s speculative explanation remains as imaginative today as when he thought of it. Biology reveals animals vary and reproduce within their created kinds. Biological observation is consistent with the biblical account. It only makes sense that a wise Creator, the Common Designer of all living things, would use this versatile, stable skeletal pattern in countless different kinds of creatures. Conversation related to me that took place between a pianist I know and a visual artist: Pianist: I appreciate music, but do not understand art. Artist: Art and music are fundamentally the same. Art is meaningful variation within order. If you don’t have organization, you have chaos. Beauty is meaningful variation within organized structure. The similarities between species are seen by evolutionists as evidence for a common ancestor. The creationist sees the similarities as evidence of a Creator based on principles of scientific design. A design engineer does not throw away a useful design, but builds on it, expands it, varies it. Our Creator-Designer used similar DNA patterns and anatomical patterns to reveal beauty in His creation by varying the differences of species, yet keeping some similarities. Dr. Jeffrey Tompkins said, “The programmer doesn’t start from scratch each time he develops a new program. Instead he uses the same general commands that he used for other projects. It shows the creator’s efficiency and ingenuity.”
The article linked below by Casey Luskin provides insight to issues with the transitional fossil record. The problems facing paleontologists are real. They just have a difficult time admitting it. Luskin quoted evolutionary anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz as summarizing the problem: [W]e are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus — full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations. . .”98 "Problem 5: Abrupt Appearance of Species in the Fossil Record Does Not Support Darwinian Evolution" by Casey Luskin https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_5_abrup/#fn68 _________ Therefore, the fossil record appears to be more consistent with a literal interpretation of creation according to "kinds" as found in Genesis chapter one than it is with Darwinian evolution.